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

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the following contents. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

○ 4 pages 8 " June 27, 2014" shall be " June 30, 2014".

○ The 4th parallel 13th parallel 13th parallel 5th parallel 8th parallel parallel 2th parallel parallel as follows:

C. Determination

In light of the contents of the relevant statutes and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances, etc., it cannot be deemed that there was an error in the disposition of this case by the defendant who rejected a correction request filed by the plaintiff after filing the final return.

(1) Article 114 (2) of the Income Tax Act shall apply to the head of a regional tax office or regional tax office having jurisdiction over the

If any omission or error occurs in a return filed by a person who has filed a preliminary return pursuant to Article 105, the tax base and amount of tax for transfer income shall be corrected. The tax payment notice, in cases where the tax authority determines or revises the tax base and amount of tax and notifies the person liable for tax payment of the decision or correction, has the nature of a collection disposition ordering the performance of the final and conclusive tax claim as a disposition giving rise to the effect of a final and conclusive tax liability by notifying the person liable for tax payment of the decision or correction (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu81, Oct. 22, 1985). The Defendant corrected the tax base and amount of tax for transfer income on the ground that there are omissions or errors in the details of the preliminary return made by the Plaintiff on the grounds that the disposition

② The main text of Article 110(4) of the Income Tax Act provides that a person who has filed a preliminary return may, in principle, not file a final return on the pertinent income, and does not find any statutory grounds to deem that the effect of the said final return on capital gains tax liability is extinguished by the Plaintiff’s unilateral act, which is the final return, or that the Plaintiff has the right to file a final return to extinguish the said final

③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant’s corrective disposition on January 5, 2015, and filed an appeal for the said disposition, the Plaintiff filed a final return and filed a request for correction accordingly at almost the same time as the filing of an objection, and filed a request for correction accordingly. Although the Plaintiff filed an objection against the corrective disposition on January 5, 2015, there is no ground to deem that the Plaintiff has the right to seek for “an amendment, not a “settlement” as to the previous preliminary return and the Defendant’s corrective disposition on the same basis through the final return, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff may seek correction according to the said final return.

(4) The Framework Act on National Taxes amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010 shall apply to preliminary returns of capital gains tax.

Article 47-2(6)2 of the Act, and Articles 5 and 6 of the Addenda, if a person fails to perform his/her duty to file a return, the penalty tax imposed by 20/100 was practically obligated. Article 114 of the Income Tax Act provides that the head of a tax office may correct the tax base and tax amount in cases where there are omissions or errors in the details of the return, not only the final return but also the details of the return, and Chapter VII of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for procedures for objection to the said disposition by the head of a tax office. However, if the effect of the final return becomes extinct, the imposition of the penalty tax without filing

⑤ Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1609 Decided May 29, 2008, etc. cited by the Plaintiff, etc., imposes additional tax on the violation of the obligation to make a preliminary return, and it is inappropriate to rely on the instant case where the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay capital gains tax has already been determined due to the preliminary return and the Defendant’s corrective disposition thereon.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.