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

The reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows: (a) whether the disposition of this case is legitimate on January 2, 201; (b) whether the relevant laws and regulations (from the second to the sixth fifth (from the fifth to the sixth fifth) are relevant laws and regulations are as follows: (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for addition of the laws and regulations related to the end of the judgment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; (d) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. A new part.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the instant disposition

The reasons for this part of this Court shall be from the seventh to the nineth day following the seventh day. This part shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2) Determination as to the principal portion of the instant decision of correction

A) Nature of the instant decision of correction

The global income tax is a tax return method and the tax amount becomes final and conclusive when the taxpayer files a tax base and amount of tax, and thus, even if a tax payment notice was issued thereafter, it is merely a collection disposition ordering the performance of the final and conclusive tax obligation related to the principal tax of global income tax, and thus, it cannot be deemed a tax assessment subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu910, Feb. 3, 1995; 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004).

However, according to Article 45-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may request the head of the competent tax office to change the tax base and amount reported for the initial return and the revised return if the tax base and amount on the tax base exceed those to be reported under the tax-related Acts, and may seek revocation of the disposition

In light of the following circumstances, the part concerning the principal tax of the instant decision of correction is partially accepted and corrected on September 25, 2006, and the remainder is rejected. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff sought revocation of the part concerning the principal tax of the instant decision of correction and sought revocation of the rejection disposition regarding the claim of correction.

On May 7, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the final return of this case with the Defendant, and the principal tax amount of global income tax and its liability for payment was finalized for the year 2005. On September 25, 2006, the Plaintiff rendered a request for correction (hereinafter “instant request for correction”) to the effect that “the amount of global income to be estimated based on the standard market price of land, not the actual sale price, is changed” (hereinafter “instant request for correction”). According to Article 45-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the head of the tax office, upon receipt of a request for decision or correction, shall notify the applicant of the fact that there is no reason to determine or correct the tax base and tax amount or to correct it within two months from the date of receipt of the request for correction. The Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the instant request for correction. On May 7, 2007, while the amount of income confirmed at the time of the real estate sales businessman investigation was KRW 00,000, the amount of comprehensive income tax for year 2005 pursuant to Article 80.

B) Whether a rejection of correction is minor

When a taxpayer has filed a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the head of a tax office has rejected a disposition of rejection, the taxpayer may file an appeal against the disposition of rejection of correction, but it is not allowed to assert that the disposition of rejection of correction is illegal

The reason why the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of this case with the Defendant is that “the amount of global income should be calculated as the standard market price of land, not the actual sale price, and thus exceeds the tax base and tax amount to be reported.” The reason why the Plaintiff asserts that the decision for correction of this case was unlawful is that the tax base to be reported is not the amount of taxation to be reported because the Plaintiff did not engage in land transactions in 2005.” This is not allowed to be deemed unlawful for the Plaintiff’s decision for correction of this case on

나아가 원고가 신고한 과세표준과 세액 산출근거인 152건 토지거래가 원고가 한 것인지 아닌지 여부에 관하여 살펴본다. 다음에서 보는 사정에 비추어 152건 토지거래는 원고가 한 것이 맞다.、

① The Plaintiff filed a final tax return of this case on May 206, 2005, even if the Director of the Regional Tax Office of Gwangju 205 stated that the Plaintiff traded 152 pieces of land around 205 to the 200-No. 2 of the 205-No. 5-No. 2 of the 205-No. 2 of the 2005-No. 2 of the 2005-No. 2 of the 2005-No. 2 of the 2005-No. 7 of the 205-No. 2 of the 2005-No. 1 of the 205-No. 2 of the 207-No. 2 of the 2005-No. 2 of the 152-No. 1 of the 2005-No. 2 of the 2007-No. 2 of the 2007.

3) Determination as to the penalty tax part among the instant decision of correction

The reasons for this part of this Court shall be from the 7th day below the 9th day to the 6th day below. This part shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance that rejected this part of the instant decision of revocation is unreasonable. However, this part of the lawsuit is deemed to have been examined to the extent possible to render a judgment on the merits. Therefore, this Court does not remand to the court of first instance, but decides to render a judgment on the merits itself. Since the principle prohibiting disadvantageous alteration in the instant case that only the Plaintiff appealed, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance that was incinerated in the instant decision of revocation cannot be revoked and dismissed. The Plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed.