2. A port consumption shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on September 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

Where the whole purport of the pleadings is integrated into the statements in Gap, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, and 2 (including household numbers), the following facts are recognized:

[1]

DD, the representative director of the OB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "B") pretended to have entered into a waste disposal entrustment contract with the "CC Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "CC Industry") and paid BB funds of KRW 000 from July 1998 to April 1, 199, and embezzled it by returning KRW 000 among them.

O) In addition, theCC industry included the above 9.4 billion won as revenue as waste disposal price, and included the above 000 won as loss of waste disposal cost.

O After that, the Plaintiff purchased all the issued stocks of theCC industry from DaD and merged theCC industry on April 3, 2002.

O On July 8, 2002, the Plaintiff received the refund of the above KRW 7.23 billion from DaD and appropriated it as a deposit deposit.

O After that, the plaintiff returned the above 9.4 billion won including the above 000 billion won to BB on April 29, 2003, and appropriated it as a refund of deposit.

[2]

C The director of the tax office determined that the difference between the appraised value of the shares and the acquisition value should be included in the gross income for the business year 2002 by the Plaintiff’s wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act because the Plaintiff’s purchase of the outstanding shares of theCC industry from DaD was low price acquisition.

O In addition, the head of Samsung Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff should include the Plaintiff’s KRW 000,000, which was returned from MadD on July 8, 2002, in the gross income for the business year of 202.

C) Accordingly, on July 1, 2006, the director of Samsung Tax Office decided to increase the corporate tax for the business year of 2002 to 000 won by the plaintiff, and this amount is the sum of the principal tax and the additional tax to 000 won.

O) Meanwhile, the head of Samsung Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff’s return to BB on April 29, 2003 should include the Plaintiff’s KRW 000 in the deductible expenses for the business year of 2003.

C) Accordingly, the director of Samsung Tax Office reduced or corrected the corporate tax for the 2003 business year of the plaintiff.

[3]

O The plaintiff filed a request for a appellate trial on the principal tax and additional tax of the 2002 business year in which the increase was determined as above, and on June 30, 2008, the Tax Tribunal decided that the difference between the stock value and the transfer value of the plaintiff's 2002 business year should be illegal if it is difficult to view the purchase of the stock issued by DaD as a low-price transfer, and that the difference between the stock value and the transfer value should be included in the gross income of the plaintiff for the 2002 business year.

O In accordance with the above decision of the Tax Tribunal, the defendant reduced the corporate tax of 2002 business year to 000 won, and this amount is the sum of the principal tax and the additional tax of 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the "the original disposition of this case").

[4]

O) After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the director of the Seoul Administrative Court on September 2008 seeking the revocation of the initial disposition of this case as the Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap35156.

O The Plaintiff amended the purport of the claim to revoke only the penalty tax, excluding the principal tax among the initial dispositions of this case.

O In the lawsuit above, on May 13, 2009, the judgment revoking the portion of penalty tax in the original disposition of this case was rendered.

O The reasons for the above judgment, and the plaintiff's return of KRW 000 from DaD cannot be deemed as a transaction that increases the plaintiff's net assets, and even if it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's profits have been generated, it is unlawful to include the above KRW 000 in the calculation of earnings for the business year 2002, and therefore, the additional tax part among the initial disposition in this case was revoked.

O The above judgment was finalized on April 29, 2010 through Seoul High Court No. 2009Nu14875, and Supreme Court No. 2010du1897, which became final and conclusive on April 29, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "final and conclusive judgment of this case").

[5]

O After that, on June 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification with the Defendant for the revocation of the principal portion during the instant initial disposition.

O The reasons for the above request for correction, and since the final judgment of this case falls under the "judgment under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes", the main part of the original disposition of this case should be revoked.

O On September 1, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter the above disposition)

‘Disposition' of this case.

O The reason for the disposition of this case is that the main tax in the initial disposition of this case is not included in the text of the final judgment of this case, and that the additional tax included in the text of the final judgment of this case has already been corrected, and that the plaintiff's request for correction cannot

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In the final and conclusive judgment of this case, it was judged that the plaintiff's inclusion of 000 won returned from D in the gross income for the business year 2002 of the plaintiff, and the final and conclusive judgment of this case constitutes "judgment" under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and therefore there is a ground for subsequent correction that should cancel the principal part of the original disposition of this case. For this reason, even though the plaintiff filed a request for correction seeking the cancellation of the principal part of the original disposition of this case on the ground of these correction, it was unlawful that

3. Determination

(a) Relevant statutes;

(1) 원고가 2010. 6. 21. 피고에게 경정청구를 하였는바，당시 시행되던 「국세기본법」 제45조의2 제2항은 ▲ 과세표준선고서를 법정신고기한 내에 제출한 자 또는 국세의 과세표준 및 세액의 결정을 받은 자는 다음 각호의 1에 해당하는 사유가 발생한 때에는 제1항에서 규정하는 기간에 불구하고 그 사유가 발생한 것을 안 날부터 2월 이내에 결정 또는 경정을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고，▲ 그러한 제1호로서，'최초의 신고 ・ 결정 또는 경정에 있어서 과세표준 및 세액의 계산근거가 된 거래 또는 행위 등이 그에 관한 소송에 대한 판결(판결과 동일한 효력을 가지는 화해 기타 행위를 포함한다)에 의하여 다른 것으로 확정된 때'를 규정하였다.

(2) The purpose of the ex post facto request for correction is to expand the protection of taxpayers' rights by allowing taxpayers to prove the fact and request reduction in cases where there is a change in the tax base and the basis for calculating the tax amount after the establishment of the tax liability. "When the transaction or act, etc., as provided for in Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes becomes final and conclusive as different by a ruling in the relevant lawsuit" means a case where the existence of the transaction or act, etc., as the basis for calculating the tax base and the tax amount, becomes final and conclusive as different by a ruling in the relevant lawsuit, and the first declaration, etc. cannot be maintained properly because the legal effect thereof becomes final and conclusive as different (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du22379 Decided July 28, 201). On the other hand, "when the dispute concerning the transaction or act, etc., as provided for in Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes becomes final and conclusive as being 200 different from the final and conclusive judgment.

B. Plaintiff’s request for correction

(1) The representative director of BB pretended to have entered into a waste disposal entrustment contract between July 1998 and April 199, paid KRW 000 won to theCC industry, and embezzled it by returning KRW 000,000 among them, and then, the OO industry included the above KRW 000 as waste disposal proceeds, and included the above KRW 00 as losses as waste disposal losses. After that, the Plaintiff, which merged with theCC industry, received the above KRW 000 from Mad on July 8, 2002, and appropriated it as deposits, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s return of the above KRW 00,000, including the above KRW 00,000, to the above BB on April 29, 2003, which included the Plaintiff’s net assets for the reason that the Plaintiff’s return of the above KRW 20,000,000, which included the above KRW 00,000 in the final and conclusive judgment, could not be seen as unlawful.

(2) 그렇다면 이 사건 확정판결은，6 BB의 대표이사 임DD이 CC산업과의 관계를 이용하여 BB의 자금을 횡령한 것에 관련하여 CC산업을 흡수합병한 원고가 임DD으로부터 0000원을 반환받으면서 이를 예수금으로 계상해 두었던 사실관계를 바탕으로，그 금액을 원고의 2002사업연도 익금에 산업한 삼성세무서장의 처분이 위법하다고 판단한 것으로서，▲ 원고가 임DD으로부터 받환받은 0000원을 「법인세법」 상 원고의 2002사업연도 익금에 산입할 것인지에 관하여 판단한 것일 뿐 이고，▲ 원고가 임DD으로부터 72억 3，000만 원을 반환받은 것에 관하여 원고와 임 DD 또는 BB 사이에서 분쟁이 발생하여 그러한 반환 자체의 존부에 관하여 판단하거나 그러한 반환이 원고와 임DD 또는 BB 사이에서 어떠한 법률효과를 발생시키는지에 관하여 판단한 것은 아니다. 따라서 이 사건 확정판결은，▲ '거래 또는 행위 등에 대하여 분쟁이 생겨 그에 관한 판결에 의하여 다른 것으로 확정된 때l 또는 ▲ '과세표준 및 세액의 계산근거가 된 거래 또는 행위 등에 관한 분쟁이 발생하여 그에 관한 소송에서 판결에 의하여 그 거래 또는 행위 등의 존부나 그 법률효과 등이 다른 내용의 것으로 확정됨으로써 최초의 신고 등이 정당하게 유지될 수 없게 된 경우'에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

(3) If so, the judgment of this case does not correspond to the "judgments under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes", and the plaintiff's argument that this case's final judgment constitutes the above "judgments" is without merit, and 4. conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's request for correction on the ground that the final judgment of this case falls under "judgments stipulated in Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes" is legitimate, and the plaintiff's request for cancellation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and therefore the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.