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

A. On May 20, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred to YAA in a special relationship under the Corporate Tax Act of 190-1, 490-2, XX Dong 490-3, XX Dong 490-4, XX Dong 171, XX Dong 172, XX Dong 172, XX Dong 172-1, XX Dong 172-1, XX Dong 173, Y 1569-6, and 1571-1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. On May 25, 2005, YellowA transferred to O Co., Ltd. the remaining real estate of the instant real estate, other than x 172-1, XX Dong 1571-1, and XX Dong 1569-6, out of the instant real estate, to 00 won.

C. From October 29, 2009 to January 22, 2010, the director of the Central District Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate at a low price to YellowA in a special relationship under the Corporate Tax Act; (b) applied the provision on the denial of unfair act and calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and notified the Defendant of the amount of KRW 00,00 in total, and the appraised value of KRW 1571-1, XX Dong 1569-6, and KRW 00 in total, which is the difference between KRW 00,00 in the purchase price of May 20, 2005 and KRW 172-1, 200 in the Corporate Tax Act; and (c) to correct corporate tax for the business year 205, by applying the provision on the denial of unfair act and calculation under the Corporate Tax Act.

D. Accordingly, on February 12, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 corporate tax for the business year (from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006) (from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006). On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff deemed that KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s gross income was out of the company and was reverted to Yellow A, a person with a special relationship (other income).

E. On November 12, 2010, the Plaintiff received corporate tax of 000 won from the YellowA to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction by changing the above KRW 000 out of the notified amount of change in the amount of income (the amount of income disposed as other income to YellowA) to be disposed of as other outflow. However, on December 21, 2010, the Defendant rejected it on the ground that it did not constitute a subsequent cause for the request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On November 12, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 26, 201, but dismissed it on the ground that it does not constitute a subsequent reasons for filing a request for correction.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff received corporate tax of KRW 000 from YellowA, and this is deemed to have concluded a new contract after cancelling the previous contract and concluding a new contract with the new transaction amount. Thus, this constitutes grounds for subsequent filing of a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(2)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 subparag. 2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, the Defendant ought to dispose of KRW 000 out of 00,000, which was disposed of as other income, as other income.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 45-2(2)5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7582, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”), a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return, or who has received a determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes, may request a determination or correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the relevant cause, if the cause prescribed by Presidential Decree arises after the statutory due date of return of the national tax expires. Accordingly, Article 25-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides for cases where a contract related to the effect of transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of tax, is cancelled by exercise of the right of return or cancelled due to unavoidable reasons.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s collection of KRW 000 from the YellowA cannot be deemed to have cancelled or cancelled the sale and purchase between the Plaintiff and the YellowA; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; (c) even if there was cancellation or cancellation of the domestic sales and purchase contract, it is possible to file a subsequent claim for correction when the contract related to the effect of transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base, is cancelled or cancelled due to unavoidable reasons after the formation of the contract, pursuant to Article 25-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes; (b) the circumstance that the Plaintiff was subject to the tax investigation cannot be deemed to be an inevitable reason; (c) there is no evidence to deem that there was any inevitable reason for the Plaintiff; and (d) even if the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the amount recovered from the YellowA does not fall under “out of the country” due to the Plaintiff’s possession. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.