After receiving a request for correction, this request for correction is without merit in the merits.

No. 1 Disposition and No. 2 Disposition of this case are compatible with each other.

In the absence of a disposition, the defendant's rejection of the claim for correction of this case by the disposition No. 1 of this case.

C. Defendant Switzerland’s receipt of the instant claim for correction in a fixed manner and making a decision thereon

Switzerland It is reasonable to deem that the disposition of this case was revoked and the disposition of this case No. 2 was revoked.

(c)

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition No. 1 of this case which was already revoked is without interest in action.

(v) is unlawful.

B. Disposition No. 2 of this case

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff deducts the transfer income tax amount of this case from the global income tax amount of this case as the already paid tax amount.

In addition, the amount of the transfer income tax in this case may not be refunded through legitimate procedures.

Since the instant amount of transfer income tax was not appropriated, the instant amount of transfer income tax on the instant global income tax amount.

The second disposition of this case which rejected the claim for correction of this case on the ground that it was deducted as already paid tax amount.

It argues that it should be revoked because it is illegal.

2) Ex officio determination

A) According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 of this case, the defendant is prior to the plaintiff's filing of this case.

On February 12, 2016, the amount of capital gains tax on the instant land already reduced or corrected to zero won, and the determination thereof.

It is recognized that the plaintiff's written resolution was notified to the loyalty of the tax accounting corporation where the tax agent was the plaintiff.

The transfer income tax of this case seeking a reduction or correction shall be zero won, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff was corrected by reduction or correction, the reduction or correction of the transfer income tax of this case shall be made.

The claim has no practical benefit any longer since its purpose has already been achieved.

B) Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed an application for refund of the transfer income tax amount upon the instant claim for correction.

The provisions pertaining to the determination of the national tax refund have already been claimed by the taxpayer

The procedures of refund by the tax authorities as internal administrative procedures for the national tax refund that became final;

only by the determination of the national tax refund under the above provision, the claim for repayment

It is not confirmed that the above decision of national tax refund or the application for this decision is not returned.

The decision of refusal shall be specifically and directly affected by the existence or scope of the right to claim the repayment of the taxpayer.

a disposition that does not affect such disposition, and thus cannot be deemed a disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Nu6436 Decided June 15, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4018 Decided November 26, 2009

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

The rejection of each request for correction made against the plaintiff on July 23, 2015 and January 21, 2016 by the former defendant working for the Gu shall be revoked.

A. On September 5, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 4, 2006 on the ground of sale (transaction price of KRW 6 billion) on September 4, 2006, and reported and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 144,310,572 (hereinafter “the transfer income tax of this case”) on the instant land on November 30, 2006.

B. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that “the Plaintiff prepared a false land sales contract with 000 and 000 Plaintiff; (b) trusted the instant land to 00 and newly built and sold a building on the instant land with 000 persons; and (c) on April 1, 2015, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of global income tax for 2007 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”); (b) global income tax for 2009, global income tax for 2009; and (c) global income tax for 000 for 2010.

C. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the Defendant for the refund of the capital gains tax that was paid after the reduction or correction of the capital gains tax and the refund of the capital gains tax that was paid on the ground of the Plaintiff’s transfer to 000, as the Defendant denied and imposed the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land against the Plaintiff’s 000 (hereinafter “instant claim for correction”).

D. On July 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the instant claim for correction on the ground that “the period for filing a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes was exceeded” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On January 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to dismiss the instant claim for correction on the ground that the instant transfer income tax, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on January 21, 2016, was deducted from the global income tax for the year 2007, notified to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2015, and was treated as the already paid tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On March 18, 2016, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. First Disposition of this case

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

As to the disposition No. 1 of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim for correction was unlawful and revoked, on the ground that the period for filing a claim for correction expires, since it was filed within two months from the “when a decision to change income or other taxable objects to a third party is made” as prescribed by Article 45-2(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same).

2) Ex officio determination

A) If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void due to the revocation, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu108, Dec. 12, 1995; 96Nu1931, Sept. 26, 197).

B) According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to the instant case: (a) on July 23, 2015, the Defendant: (b) rendered a disposition in the instant case that: (c) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s request for correction of the instant case is deemed to have been subject to the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; and (d) on September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request and filed a request for correction with the Tax Tribunal on September 21, 2016; and (d) on January 21, 2016, the Defendant received the request for correction along with the instant No. 131-2015-1001015499) on the Plaintiff’s request for correction, the transfer income tax in the instant case was treated as the already paid tax amount when imposing global income tax; (e) on the ground that the instant request for correction of the transfer income tax in the instant case was not subject to a request for correction.

C) According to the above facts of recognition, the Disposition No. 1 of this case rejected the plaintiff's request for correction of this case and returned the case, and the Disposition No. 2 of this case is identical to the plaintiff's objection.

the State's obligations and obligations of refund rather than a disposition that specifically and directly affects extinction;

It is rather similar to a set-off under the Civil Act in that the claim ceases to exist on the equal value, and is subject to extinction.

Where a taxation right does not exist or a taxation right is null and void or cancelled automatically, the effect of such appropriation.

If there is such reason, the person liable for duty payment has no effect of appropriation.

at any time the refund of the national tax already determined by civil action may be claimed at any time.

Since the appropriation of national tax refund is not a disposition subject to appeal litigation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482 Decided June 10, 2005, etc.)

In addition, the taxpayer voluntarily pays the transfer income tax on the income from the transfer of real estate.

The tax authority imposed and notified capital gains tax on the transfer of real estate, but the transfer of such income tax.

revocation of a capital gains tax imposition disposition on the ground that it constitutes a global income tax assessment disposition and, if so,

The transfer income tax amount voluntarily paid shall be the national tax refund due to a decision to cancel the relevant disposition after payment.

(f) The claim for repayment shall be determined by the cancellation of the original imposition disposition of capital gains tax, and

Article 51 (2) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall be appropriated for national tax refund and additional payment on refund of national taxes.

Where the requirements, procedures, methods, etc. of Article 31 of the Decree are separately provided for and appropriated.

Since a national tax refund obligation and a tax claim are only extinguished on an equal basis in the future, the tax authority shall

The taxpayer's voluntary payment of capital gains tax from the total determined tax on global income;

by deducting the remaining tax amount and notifying the tax amount, the national tax refund shall be the former State.

Goods appropriated for national taxes, etc. paid by a notice of tax payment in accordance with Article 51 (2) of the Framework Act on Taxation

In this case, the amount equivalent to the refund on the refund of national tax on the income tax paid voluntarily cannot be paid.

The remaining tax amount shall be collected by deducting the already paid tax amount from the total determined tax amount of global income tax.

It does not mean that it should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du5194 delivered on October 22, 199).

Ultimately, even in the case of the transfer income tax of this case, the defendant shall reduce or correct the tax amount to zero won.

The claim for repayment is already finalized, and the defendant's transfer income tax reduction in this case.

National tax refund due to rectification of the amount of the national tax refund was appropriated for the global income tax of this case.

As asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s refusal to pay the amount under the former Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 51(2) and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act violated the requirements, procedures, methods, etc.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim that the refund of national tax is not effective due to such reasons.

a civil action seeking the return of the national tax refund against such person, and in the proceeding, the national tax refund

It is necessary to determine the existence and scope of the claim for the refund of the gold, as an assertion and defense matter.

Since the disposition No. 2 of this case is merely a part of the application for refund of the transfer income tax amount of this case

Also, it cannot be said that it is a disposition that is the object of appeal litigation.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the second disposition of this case does not have interest in litigation or appeal litigation

It is unlawful due to the lack of eligibility as a member of the Committee.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

section 3.