A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of Company B (hereinafter “B”), and on January 30, 201, transferred B shares 210,000 (hereinafter “instant shares”) to C (hereinafter “C”).

On July 1, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to C, a person with a special relationship, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,113,889,260 of the transfer income tax in July 1, 2011.

(The assessment value per share was 45,062 won, hereinafter referred to as "original disposition"). (b)

On December 31, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a re-audit to the effect that it will re-examine the net asset value of the instant stocks and revise the tax base and tax amount according to the results thereof (hereinafter “instant decision”). On March 16, 2015, the Defendant, after re-audit, notified the Plaintiff of the results of re-audit that conducted the same tax base and tax amount as that of the original disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”). As examined below, whether the instant disposition goes against the binding force of the instant decision is subject to the instant decision, and the Plaintiff also sought revocation of the original disposition, and thus, the Defendant was deemed to have changed the original disposition to the instant disposition, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of such re-audit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Tax Tribunal determines re-examination as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate as a type of a decision on a taxpayer’s request for adjudgment. Since such re-examination decision is also decided by the Tax Tribunal, the administrative agency is bound by the decision, and the relevant administrative agency must immediately take necessary measures in accordance with the purport of the decision.

(Article 80, Article 81, and Article 65 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In particular, the binding force of the ruling extends to the judgment on the specific reasons such as the ordering of the ruling and the recognition and judgment of facts constituting the premise for the ruling, i.e., disposition.

However, the evidence No. 3 and No. 2 are shown in the statement of No. 2.