2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 90% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and 10% is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

가. 원고는 2009. 2. 16. 주식회사 BB건설， BB옐앤씨 주식회사， BB리조트 주식회사 및 BB테크엠 주식회사(이하 'BB건설 등'이라 한다)에게 자신이 소유하고 있던 CC화재해상보험 주식회사(이하 'CC화재'라고 한다)의 발행주식 6，327，245주(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다)를 주당 000원， 매매대금 000원에 장외에서 매도하였다.

B. Around March 2010, BB construction, etc. reported corporate tax for the business year of 2009, and purchased the instant stocks from the Plaintiff, who is a person specially related under the Corporate Tax Act, at a higher price than the market price, and applying the provision of the wrongful act and calculation register under the Corporate Tax Act, the BB construction, etc. applied the provision of the wrongful act and calculation register under the Corporate Tax Act, and upon February 16, 2009, 000 won (=6,327,245 note x00 won (= 000 won - 5,490 won) per share, which is the difference between the sales price of the instant stocks and 00 won per share, which is the final market price at the Korea Exchange. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20000, Feb. 16, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20000 won - 00 won - 5,490 won).

C. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff sentenced and paid 000 won of global income tax base and 0000 won of global income tax (the amount before deducting the already paid tax amount) (hereinafter “instant global income tax return”) including the instant other income 000 won (hereinafter “instant global income tax return”).

D. In addition, on May 23, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000 and capital gains tax base of capital gains tax and KRW 0000 per share after deducting KRW 000 per share disposed of as other income as above from the transfer value per share, which is the transfer value of the instant shares, and on July 2, 2010, paid KRW 000 as additional capital gains tax base and tax amount according to a revised return on November 18, 2010 after filing a revised return on the transfer value of the instant shares at KRW 000 per share.

E. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written claim for rectification of tax base and tax amount to the effect that (i) the total amount of other income included in global income in 2009 should be reduced or corrected on the ground that BB Construction, etc. was not primarily purchased from the Plaintiff, and (ii) the market price of the instant stocks is 000 won per share, and (iii) the amount of other income should be reduced or corrected.

F. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff filed two copies (one and two copies) of the request for correction with respect to the same year to which the Plaintiff belongs, and that it is impossible to review the request, and that the Defendant shall prepare one copy of the request for correction according to each year to which the tax base and tax amount are reduced, and that the Plaintiff shall prepare and submit supporting documents (income calculation details) to which the tax base and tax amount are reduced, and on July 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that “The Defendant issued a request for correction to the effect that “The market price of the shares of this case exceeds KRW 5,490 per share, which is calculated as the market price of the shares of this case by reducing the global income tax amount for the year

G. However, on September 13, 2010, the defendant issued a rejection disposition against the plaintiff's request for correction of the amount of income (hereinafter "the first rejection disposition") on the ground that corporate tax and source tax have not been confirmed until September 10, 2010 such corporate tax and source tax have not been confirmed until September 10, 2010. (h) On December 24, 2010, the plaintiff again submitted to the defendant a request for correction of the tax base by reducing the total amount of other income included in the global income in 2009, on the ground that BB construction, etc. was not purchased as high-value, and the final tax base should be corrected to 000 won, and (2) on the ground that the tax base should be corrected to 000 won per share of the market price of the shares, and the tax base should be revised to 1.200 won, and the amount of tax to be corrected to 1.201 won prior to the filing of the request for correction (hereinafter "the tax base correction application").

(i) On January 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant refusal disposition with the Tax Tribunal, and on April 30, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that the instant refusal disposition is identical to the first refusal disposition, which is not a new infringement on the Plaintiff’s rights or interests, and it is merely a mere notification that is not a new infringement on the Plaintiff’s rights or interests, and that the Plaintiff filed an appeal on January 20, 201 after the lapse of 90 days from September 14, 2010.

[Based on Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7-1 to 4, Gap evidence 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the purport that even within the period for filing a request for correction, where a taxpayer receives a request for correction from a tax authority for filing a request for correction, the request for correction to the same effect as the initial request for correction cannot be re-scheduled, and that the tax base and tax amount should be contested only through the procedure of objection against the initial request for correction, and that the request for a request for a trial against the instant refusal disposition filed on January 20, 201, which was filed on September 14, 201 after the lapse of 90 days from September 14, 201, the period for filing a request for correction, which was filed on January 20, 201, is inappropriate, and therefore, the instant lawsuit was

B. Determination

The rejection disposition is a new disposition when an administrative agency expresses its intention of rejection against a citizen's application for a disposition, and it is clear that the application has been filed in the future. In this case, the time limit for administrative appeal and administrative litigation is followed by each disposition, and the time limit for litigation against the previous disposition has expired, and thus, it is not possible to bring an administrative lawsuit against a new rejection disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7542, Dec. 8, 192). Accordingly, the rejection disposition in this case constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation as a new rejection disposition, and it is legitimate for the plaintiff to bring an appeal against the tax Tribunal on January 20, 201, within 90 days after the date on which it became known that the new rejection disposition in this case was filed. Ultimately, the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate because it has undergone the previous trial procedure lawfully.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Majorly, around April 29, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to sell and purchase the instant stocks at KRW 000, which reflects the adequate value of the instant stocks at the time, and the market value of the instant stocks is not KRW 000 per share, but KRW 00 per share, which is the final market value of the Korea Exchange on February 16, 2009, and the instant stock transaction is with economic rationality, and does not constitute a wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the instant stock transaction is unlawful, even though the total amount of other income included in the global income in 2009 should be reduced.

2) Preliminaryly, even if the provision on the denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act applies to the instant stock transaction, the market price of the instant stock is not KRW 000 per share, but KRW 000 per share, and the instant other income should be calculated and reduced again on the basis of KRW 000 per share, but the instant disposition by the Defendant, which rejected it, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1. The entry is as shown in Annex 1.

C. Determination

1) The fact that the plaintiff's primary argument is recognized

Comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, evidence 1, 2, and 4, evidence 1, 2, and 3, evidence 5, and evidence 5, and evidence 6, the following facts may be acknowledged:

(1) In around 2008, the Plaintiff was the largest shareholder holding 5,537, and 245 shares ofCC fire (20.68%).

(2) On April 17, 2008, DD Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD fire”) proposed that the Plaintiff, a major shareholder ofCC fire, determined acquisition and merger ofCC fire, and sold 5,537,245 per share to the Plaintiff at KRW 000 per share.

(3) However, the Plaintiff refused the above proposal, and DD fire, on April 28, 2008, proposed to the Plaintiff to sell to the Plaintiff 00 won per share at KRW 5,537,245, and 790,000 per share at KRW 00 per share. In the event that the Plaintiff refused the proposal, it expressed its intention to take over the CC fire by means of tender offer for the stocks of CC fire.

(4) On April 29, 2008, the Plaintiff again rejected the proposal for acceptance of DD Fire, and delegated BB Construction with the exercise of voting rights related to the instant shares.

(5) On June 2, 2008, BB Group addedCC Fire to its affiliated company and published the reason for its change as "acquisition of shares", and obtained approval from the Financial Services Commission on June 27, 2008 as a major shareholder forCC fire from BB Group.

(6) On February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff sold the instant shares to BB Construction, etc. at least KRW 000 per share and KRW 000 per purchase price.

(7) The Plaintiff is a relative of KimO, the president of the BB Group, and is related to BB construction, etc.

B) Determination

The plaintiff's assertion that the price-fixing of the shares of this case was reached around April 29, 2008, but it is difficult to view that there was a consensus between the plaintiff, BB construction, etc. to sell and purchase the shares of this case at the price of 00 won per share on April 29, 2008, based on the following circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff's sales contract for the shares of this case was prepared on February 16, 2009, i.e., the price-fixing 200 won per share between the plaintiff and BB construction, and the plaintiff's final price-fixing 10 won per share, and the price-fixing 20 won per share was purchased at the time of acquisition of the shares of this case by 100 won per share under the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and 300 won per share under the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act before the acquisition of the shares of this case by 100 won per share.

2) Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion

Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "if the stocks issued by a stock-listed corporation are traded on the Korea Exchange, the market price of such stocks shall be determined on the date of the transaction." The above facts are as follows. The stocks of this case were traded outside the Korea Exchange between the plaintiff and the Oconstruction, and the market price of the stocks of this case shall not be deemed to be KRW 000 per share, which is the final market price of the Korea Exchange on February 16, 2009. Therefore, the tax base of Article 89(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to be 00 won, and the market price of the stocks shall be 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 63(1)1(a) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and 200 won, calculated on the basis of the average market price of the 20.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction is legitimate within the scope of the above legitimate tax base and determined tax amount, and the exceeding part is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the other claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.