2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

On November 5, 2009, the Plaintiff reported transfer income tax for 38.93/121.69 on January 25, 2010 after transferring 99.2/310.1 (hereinafter referred to as "share of this case") and 38.93/121.69 shares of the building on the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul OOdong 000 site (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), but on April 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of tax base and amount of tax (hereinafter referred to as "first request for correction") with the Defendant on April 29, 2010, and the Defendant received a request for correction of tax base and amount of tax on June 25, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the first request for correction") for correction on the same ground that the Plaintiff cannot be filed again as the first request for correction on June 20, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition for correction") on the same ground that the Plaintiff did not request for correction.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s first disposition on the first claim for correction of the first claim was notified on June 25, 2010, and the appeal period was filed on November 10, 201, and the Defendant’s reply on August 16, 201 following the second claim for correction was not a mere fact that it does not infringe upon the Plaintiff’s new rights or interests, and it is merely a disposition that is the object of objection.

B. The rejection disposition is established by an administrative agency's expression of its intention of rejection against a citizen's application, and the subsequent rejection of a request is clearly indicated, it shall be deemed that a new disposition is made, and in this case, the period allowed for administrative appeal and administrative litigation is proceeding on the basis of each disposition and the period allowed for litigation against the previous disposition is not impossible to bring an administrative litigation against a subsequent rejection disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu7542, Dec. 8, 1992; 96Nu15251, Mar. 13, 1998; 200Du6084, Mar. 29, 2002). The plaintiff's request for correction is not the one for which the plaintiff's request for correction was made again stated on June 25, 2010; and the defendant's request for correction is not the one for which the plaintiff's request for correction was made on the basis of the plaintiff's request for correction.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff actually paid KRW 000,000 to purchase the instant shares, with the knowledge of the fact that the tax accountant mistakenly reported the purchase price of the instant shares to KRW 000 (=the purchase price of the instant shares x 99.2/310.1) with the knowledge of the fact that the purchase price of the instant shares was calculated based on the instant shares ratio, and thus, the purchase price of the instant shares should be corrected to KRW 000, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.”

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff, MaG, and HaH 3 (hereinafter “three persons including the Plaintiff”) purchased the instant land from the seller Park II. The purchase price of the instant land was set at KRW 00, and three persons including the Plaintiff were separately set between the seller and the seller. The Plaintiff’s share in the instant land was either KRW 99.2/310, or the Plaintiff was to bear KRW 00,000 out of the said purchase price, and three persons including the Plaintiff and the seller were notarized on that date.

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 000 out of the total amount of KRW 000, and paid the total amount of the loan to the seller after consultation with three parties including the Plaintiff, etc., by borrowing KRW 000 in the name of the Plaintiff as collateral for the remaining 000, among the loans, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 000 in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 00 in the name of the Plaintiff.

(3) Three parties including the Plaintiff, etc. newly constructed a building on the instant land and sold the instant land and buildings to the Kim J on November 5, 2009.

(4) The Plaintiff requested the preliminary return of capital gains tax to the tax accountant office, and the tax accountant did not know of the purchase price of the instant shares, and reported the amount of KRW 000 ( KRW 000 x 99.2/310.1) calculated according to the Plaintiff’s share ratio among the instant land, instead of the Plaintiff’s actual purchase price of the instant shares, and the Plaintiff subsequently became aware of this fact.

(5) Accordingly, on April 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a first claim for correction with the Defendant to request the purchase price of KRW 000, which is the actual purchase price of the instant shares, and on June 25, 2010, the Defendant rendered the first first disposition rejecting the claim for correction due to lack of evidential data, and the Plaintiff subsequently filed the second request for correction after supplementing financial data, etc., but the Defendant did the second request for correction, and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 12, and the whole purport of the pleading

C. Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff actually paid 00 won to the seller Park II in purchasing the shares of this case, but the preliminary return amount of the tax accountant was reported to 000 won, so the purchase price of the shares of this case should be corrected to 000 won in accordance with Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the disposition of this case which the plaintiff refused to purchase the shares of this case was unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case should be revoked, the plaintiff's claim is accepted for reasons.