1. Article 25-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) delegated by Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that “When a contract related to the validity of a transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, is cancelled by the exercise of the right of rescission or is cancelled or cancelled due to unavoidable reasons that occurred after the formation of the relevant contract.”

The purpose of the ex post facto request for correction is to expand the remedy of taxpayers’ rights by allowing taxpayers to file a request for reduction of their tax base and amount of tax when there is a change in the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of tax due to the occurrence of a certain later cause after the establishment of the tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du22379, Jul. 28, 2011).

Meanwhile, Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the business year in which a domestic corporation’s income and deductible expenses accrue for each business year shall be the business year which includes the date on which the relevant income and deductible expenses are determined. The so-called "right confirmation principle" is adopted to realize the income in a case where a right which is the cause of income has not been realized, and where there is time gap between the time when the right which is the cause of income and the time when the income is realized, the right is not the time when the income is determined and the time when the income is realized and the time when the income is realized. The method of calculating the income for the pertinent business year is deemed the time when the right which is the cause of income and the time when the income is realized. Accordingly, even if the right which is the cause of income has become final and conclusive and the tax liability has been established upon the fulfillment of the requirements for income, if it is determined that the income has not been realized due to the occurrence of a certain subsequent cause, it shall be deemed that the initial tax liability cannot be imposed in principle on the said income (see, e.g.

Therefore, in principle, corporate tax shall be deemed as the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction in principle for the exercise of the right to cancel or for unavoidable reasons under Article 25-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, in special circumstances where the Corporate Tax Act or relevant regulations stipulate the amount of income not realized due to the cancellation of a certain contract separately as the grounds for deducting the amount of income in the business year to which the date of such cancellation belongs, or the taxpayer has filed a corporate tax in the manner of deducting the amount of income in the business year to which the date of such cancellation belongs in accordance with corporate accounting standards or practices, such cancellation of a contract shall not affect the tax liability that was initially established, and thus, shall not be the grounds for filing

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

"(1) 원고는 부동산개발 및 주택건설 사업을 영위하는 법인으로서 2006 사업연도부터 인천 *구 **동 **블럭에 '○○○ 아파트| 총 1,022세대(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)를 건설하면서 2007 사업연도 내지 2009 사업연도에 이 사건 아파트 중 990세대를 분양하였다.",(2) 원고는 이 사건 아파트의 분양예정가액, 분양계약률, 작업진행률, 누적된 실제발생비용, 분양원가 등을 기준으로 2007 사업연도 내지 2009 사업연도 법인세를 신고 납부하였는데(다만 2007 사업연도에는 소득금액이 이월결손금으로 모두 공제되어 법인세를 납부하지 아니하였다), 2010 사업연도에 이르러 위 990세대 중 558세대의 분양계약이 수분양자들의 계약조건 미이행 등에 따라 해제됨으로써(이하 '이 사건 분양계약의 해제'라고 한다) 2010 사업연도의 분양계약률이 32.1%로 급격하게 감소하였다.

(3) As such, the Plaintiff determined the corporate tax by adjusting the sales revenue amount for the business year 2007 through 2009 and the corresponding sales revenue amount for the business year. On December 9, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the instant case with the Defendant for the refund of corporate tax for the business year 2008 and the business year 2009. However, on January 11, 2011, the Defendant issued the instant disposition rejecting the request on the ground that the sales revenue amount for the sales contract cancelled and the sales revenue amount should be included in the gross income and deductible expenses for the business year in which the date of cancellation falls. Therefore, the cancellation of the instant sales contract cannot be a ground for filing a request for correction after the cancellation.

3. Examining these factual relations in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff continued to report corporate tax in a manner that deducts the amount of income for the business year to which the date of cancellation belongs, it is reasonable to view that the contract constitutes grounds for filing a later claim for correction by falling under the “cancellation of contract due to the exercise of the right to cancel” under Article 25-2 Subparag. 2 of

Meanwhile, Article 69(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23589, Feb. 2, 2012) newly established Article 69(3) that provides that where the difference between the amount determined due to the cancellation of a construction contract and the amount determined due to the cancellation of a construction contract occurs, the difference shall be included in the gross income or deductible expenses for the business year in which the cancellation date belongs. However, according to Articles 1 and 12 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, Article 69(3) of the said Act applies from the first beginning business year after January 1, 2012, so this case

4. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for ex-post request for correction under Article 25-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for ex-post request for correction under the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, on the grounds that the corporate tax is imposed on a fixed-term basis and the principle that the former profits and losses cannot be reflected in the current profit and losses, as the principle that the former profits and losses are currently applicable in the business year’s independence principle

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.