2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of penalty tax ○○○○○○ from among the transfer income tax for the year 2004, which the Defendants imposed on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010, is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff acquired and possessed a building of 387 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from ○○○○○, Seoul ○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○, and transferred the building to ○○○○, on February 2, 2004 】 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff transferred the building to ○○○,

B. On November 1, 2008, Defendant ○○○○○○○○ (including additional tax) imposed a tax on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2004, regarding the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 00 billion and the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 00 billion according to the contract for acquisition and approval of transfer of the instant real estate.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 2009 】 The Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request for examination on May 2009 】

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 2010, the head of the Defendant △△△ Tax Office: (a) considered the transfer value of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as KRW 00 billion, and considered the acquisition value as KRW 00 billion; and (b) imposed a disposition imposing KRW 004 upon the Plaintiff (including additional tax KRW 00,000,000) by increasing the transfer income tax for 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “instant increased disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the foregoing disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on December 2, 2010 】 The dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on the same month 】 (the same month).

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 00 million, and that the amount of additional tax is unreasonable. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of transfer income tax for the instant disposition for the correction of increase in capital gains by △△ District Court 201Gudan1453, and the instant case was transferred to the same court. The Defendant △△△△ Tax Office accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the acquisition value 】 (i) February 2, 2012 during the instant lawsuit; (ii) accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the acquisition value 】 (iii) issued a re-revision disposition imposing ○○○○○ (including additional tax ○○○) upon the reduction of ○○○○○ (including additional tax) during the instant disposition for the correction of increase in capital gains tax on July 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On May 13, 2012, the Plaintiff did not file an appeal after having been rendered a judgment against the said lawsuit, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 14 of the same year.

H. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff had not been fully aware of the circumstances leading up to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s additional tax ○○○○ out of the instant disposition was unlawful.

3. Determination on the defendants' main defense

A. As to the action against the defendant ○○ director of the tax office

In a case where an increase or decrease is made after a taxation was made, the original disposition is not to determine the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition as it is, but to determine a single tax base and tax amount as a whole by including only the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition as it is not to determine the excess in excess of the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition. Thus, the original disposition is extinguished as a matter of course by absorbing the increased or decreased disposition, and only the increased or decreased disposition is subject to litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du16149, Sept. 8, 200). After the original disposition of this case was made by the head of ○○ Tax Office on Nov. 1, 2008, the fact that the head of △△△△ District Tax Office issued the instant increased or decreased disposition on July 1, 201 as seen earlier. Thus, it is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant○ Tax Office

B. As to the lawsuit against the head of Defendant △△ Tax Office

Administrative litigation against a disposition imposing national taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which a decision on a request for examination or adjudgment is notified (Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the Plaintiff’s September 2010 x (Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Although Defendant △△ Director requested the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to request the correction of the instant disposition by the head of the relevant tax office, the fact that the decision of dismissal was notified x December 2010 x (Article 2010 x (3) as seen earlier is apparent that the instant

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is all unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.