The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. (1) Article 45-2(2)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1352, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the amount of income for the first time after the lapse of 2 years from the date of application of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2783, Feb. 7, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be deemed as the grounds for ex post facto rectification of the contract due to the exercise of the right to cancel or the inevitable reasons under Article 25-2 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2783, Apr. 16, 201) to be included in deductible expenses for the business year which includes the date of cancellation of the contract, or for the first time after the cancellation of the contract, the amount of income generated by the taxpayer shall not be included in deductible expenses for the business year.

However, Article 1 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act provides that "the date of entry into force shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation," and Article 2 provides that "this Decree shall apply from the first beginning business year after January 1, 2012, and does not separately stipulate individual application cases concerning the provision of this case. This is to ensure that where goods or services are not supplied due to the cancellation of a contract under Article 59 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act as amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012, Article 7 of the Addenda provides that "the date of entry into force on the date of entry into force on the date of entry into force on the date of entry into force," and that "the provision of this case shall apply to individual application cases from the date of cancellation of a contract and the date of entry into force after July 1, 2012, regardless of whether the cause of issuance of the revised tax invoice arises."

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff, a corporation operating the Housing Construction and Sales Business, etc., constructed a total of 3,634 households of apartment and commercial buildings within the AAA development project zone from January 2008 to 2010, and sold 96.4% of the total number of households from 2008 to 2010.

(2) The Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2008 to 2010 on the basis of the work progress rate and sale rate of the instant apartment, etc. (However, the income amount was deducted as a loss carried forward in the business year 2008 and did not pay corporate tax).

(3) The sales contract of the instant apartment, etc. was rescinded by approximately 17% in the business year of 2011, approximately 6% in the business year of 2012, and approximately 11% in the business year of 2013 due to the outstanding payment of the buyers. Upon reporting corporate tax for each business year, the Plaintiff included the sales contract as “non-business losses in the business year of which the date of cancellation belongs.”

(4) On March 29, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) determined corporate tax for the business year 2008 or 2010 on the basis of the rate of sale reduced as a result of the cancellation of the sales contract; and (b) filed an application for correction of the instant case seeking to refund corporate tax for the business year 2010 to the Defendant.

(5) On February 10, 2015, the Defendant deemed that no sales contract had been cancelled prior to December 31, 2011, and corrected the tax base and tax amount for the business year 2010. However, on January 1, 2012, the Defendant rejected correction on the ground that the sales contract should be reflected in the profit and loss of the business year to which the date of cancellation belongs as to the household whose sales contract was cancelled after January 1, 2012.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the instant sales contract was rescinded in each business year of 2012 and 2013, the instant provision applies to a subsequent request for correction for the business year beginning from January 1, 2012, regardless of the date of rescission of the contract, and thus, does not apply to the instant case seeking correction for the business year of 2010. In the same purport, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff’s subsequent request for correction cannot be restricted pursuant to the instant provision is justifiable, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application of the instant provision.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that there cannot be a special circumstance where the Plaintiff’s subsequent request for correction is limited on the ground that the corporate accounting standards or practices cannot be recognized to deduct income for the business year in which the following reasons arise, as in the case of cancellation of the apartment sales contract, such as sales reduction or sales exchange under the sales contract generated on ordinary and repeated grounds for the profit and loss arising from such cancellation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the exception to the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for rectification, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.