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

A. The Plaintiff worked as an insurance solicitor belonging to the CCC Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Fire and Marine Insurance”) and was allowed to sell funds to the insurance solicitor at the end of 2007, and registered as an investment solicitor for indirect investment securities.

B. On December 31, 2008, the CCC Fire and Marine Insurance: (a) calculated the income amount by applying 21.4% to the Plaintiff based on the applicable income ratio from the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitation; and (b) issued a withholding receipt for the income amount for the year-end year-end tax settlement that calculated the tax base of global income from the income deduction as the OO won, and the calculated tax amount and the determined tax amount as the OO won.

C. Meanwhile, the CCC Securities Co., Ltd. provided the Plaintiff with OOO in 2008.

D. On May 29, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) calculated the total amount of business income on the insurance solicitation when filing a final return on the tax base of global income accrued in 2008 (the total amount of business income - necessary expenses OOOwon); and (b) calculated the total amount of business income on the fund sales (the total amount of business income - necessary OOOwon - necessary expenses - OOOwon); and (c) reported and paid the calculated tax amount after calculating the global income tax base of global income after income deduction, and the calculated tax amount after deducting the already paid tax amount from OOOO won.

E. On June 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the tax base and tax amount belonging to 2008, alleging that the amount of business income from the subscription made for year-end settlement is recognized as business income in the final return of global income tax base for global income tax base. However, on August 26, 2011, Article 201-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was newly established on February 18, 2010 and applied from the amount of income generated after January 1, 2010, and thus, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for correction on global income tax belonging to 2008 is unreasonable (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 7, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, and Eul 1 through 3 (each number includes several numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff’s additional payment of global income tax for the year 2008 due to fund sales constituted a violation of the principle of equality, it is necessary to retroactively apply Articles 143(3)1-3 and 201-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as amended on February 18, 2010, and to recognize the business income arising from the year-end tax settlement as the amount of business income arising from the provision of insurance solicitation added up in the tax base of global income for which 2008 reverts, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Articles 143(3)1-3 and 201-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act have been newly established by the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on February 18, 2010, and Article 143(3)1-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act") provides that "the method of calculating or revising the estimated income amount pursuant to the proviso of Article 80(3) of the Income Tax Act by calculating or revising the estimated income amount pursuant to Article 80(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act" shall not apply to the amount of the income from the business income of the year-end tax settlement by multiplying the income amount by the income rate of the year-end tax settlement pursuant to Article 201-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 201-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not apply to the final tax return on global income pursuant to Article 70, and Article 201-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant would rectify the amount of business income from the insurance recruitment that was added to the global income tax base for the year 2008 as the business income for the year-end tax settlement is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on different premise is not reasonable (the Plaintiff’s calculation of global income tax for the year 2008 is alleged to the effect that the retroactive application of Articles 143(3)1-3 and 201-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act does not violate the principle of equality in calculating the global income tax base for the year 2008. However, it is recognized that the legislative body has broad freedom of formation, and the legislators’ first decision or correction after the enforcement of this Decree on the income accrued in the year 209, or that the legislators had the above Enforcement Decree applied from the portion on which the final return of the global income tax base was made, in light of the general principle of retroactive legislative prohibition, and it cannot be deemed that it goes against the principle of equality).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.