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

The reasons for this decision are as follows, except for the deletion of the above request for correction on May 24, 201 (the defendant dismissed the above request for correction on May 24, 201) and the addition of the plaintiff's following arguments and the judgment on them. It shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary claim

Article 97(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value shall be the actual transaction value in calculating transfer margin, and where it is impossible to confirm it, the acquisition value shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The defendant recognized 00 won as the actual transaction value, which is confirmed to have been paid to the former owner on the financial transaction statement on the ground that there is no sales contract which is trusted, and that the former owner cannot confirm the actual transaction value. The same applies to the above circumstances, and the acquisition value of the land in this case should be calculated based on the transaction example prescribed by the Presidential Decree, appraisal value, or conversion value, and thus the above amount should be calculated based on the actual transaction value. Therefore, the defendant considered the above amount as the actual transaction value and the disposition in this case was taken. Accordingly, the above defect in the disposition in this case is serious and obvious, and the disposition in this case is null and void (hereinafter referred to as the "claim

2) Claim as to the conjunctive claim

On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff discovered the original copy of the sales contract verifying the actual transaction price and filed a request for correction of the instant disposition on April 21, 201. Accordingly, the National Tax Service rejected the said request for correction on the ground that the period for filing a request for review against the instant disposition has expired, such as a request for review against the instant disposition, etc. However, the said request for correction is in accordance with Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2(3) and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and is separate from the request for a trial against the instant disposition, and therefore, it is unreasonable to dismiss the said request on the ground of the defect of the procedure for

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the first argument

In full view of the above circumstances (the circumstances described in the fifth and sixth pages of the first instance judgment), considering the fact that the actual transaction price of the land in this case appears to have been 000 won, which is the amount confirmed by financial transaction data, and even if it is not possible to confirm the actual transaction price of the land in this case as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the disposition in this case constitutes a cause to be null and void because it is apparent that the defect falls under a case where it can only be accurately examined. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

2) Determination as to the second argument

The plaintiff's above assertion is disputing the defendant's decision as to the above claim for correction, and it is evident that the defendant's decision as to the above claim for correction is not a defendant's decision but a dispute over the disposition in this case (the purport of the claim, and all the purport of the lawsuit in this case seek nullification or revocation of the disposition in this case) cannot be a ground for deciding whether or not the disposition in this case is unlawful ( even if the above claim for correction satisfies the requirements under the Framework Act on National Taxes as the plaintiff's assertion, such ground is not a ground for assertion in the lawsuit in this case seeking invalidation or revocation of the disposition in this case. Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff's claim for correction as stated in the above plaintiff's assertion was submitted to the defendant's disposition office on March 31, 201, and the defendant refused correction on April 1, 201, and the plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on April 21, 2011, and the National Tax Service rejected the plaintiff's request for correction on the above ground.

3) Additional determination

As seen earlier, in light of the purport of the purport of the claim and appeal, and it is apparent that the plaintiff has sought nullification or revocation of the disposition in this case, but on the other hand, considering the purport of the appeal against the decision to refuse the above request for correction, an additional examination is conducted on the premise that the lawsuit in this case is the purport of disputing the defendant's rejection disposition regarding the above request for correction. In cases where the right to request for correction is not recognized, even if the tax authority made a reply against the taxpayer's request for correction, it cannot be viewed as a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du9608, Jul. 23, 1999). Thus, the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of refusal for correction is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du9608, Jul. 23, 199). The ground alleged by the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not correspond to the plaintiff's right to request for correction.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim part is dismissed as it is unlawful. The judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.