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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On March 11, 2003, the Defendant issued a corrective notice of KRW 132,123,820, KRW 1,336,949,00 among the sales revenue, such as alcoholic beverages, etc. for the year 200 from ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○, which is operated by the Plaintiffs as a business, to the Plaintiffs, for the reason that the Plaintiff omitted sales revenue, such as alcoholic beverages, etc. for the year 2000, value-added tax of KRW 121,898,930, KRW 84,07,910, KRW 200, KRW 325,91,230, and KRW 200, KRW 132,123,820, KRW 180, KRW 131,000, Plaintiff 131,439,470, respectively, to the Plaintiff ○○○, respectively.

B. However, in a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against the imposition of the above value-added tax and the special consumption tax, the ○ High Court sentenced to the revocation of the imposition disposition with the exception of the value-added tax of 8,834,170 won for the first time in 200, the second time in 2000, the value-added tax of 9,507,032 won for the second time in 200, the special consumption tax of 1 or 10 years in 200, and the special consumption tax of 24,090,230 won for the second time in 200 (Supreme Court Decision 006, 2006, 5, 2004Nu2651 Decided April 206, 209, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on 2006, 9, and 8 years (○○ Court Decision 2006Du9016 Decided August

C. On September 29, 2006, based on Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiffs filed a request with the Defendant for rectification that each of the above comprehensive income tax should be reduced to KRW 11,283,396, and KRW 25,395,946, and KRW 11,125,63, based on the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant did not give any notice by the deadline for handling the case.

[Grounds for recognition] Unauthorized Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each base number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the exclusion period of the above global income tax imposition right has expired on May 31, 2006, and Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the exclusion period of the national tax imposition right shall be determined as soon as possible, so the tax imposition right of the person who has the authority to impose taxes can not make any disposition to change the tax amount including the decision of the increase and the decision of the correction of the tax amount due to the extinguishment of the tax imposition right, and that the same applies to the case of the decision of the correction of the reduction due to the reasons under Article 45-2 (2) of the Framework Act

As to this, the plaintiffs' claim for correction is unlawful on the ground that the sales price of ○○○ was appraised by the previous judgment, and the tax base was modified, and as long as the plaintiffs filed a claim for correction within 2 months from the date when they became aware of such fact, the defendant must correct the global income details and disposition against the plaintiffs, but the period of exclusion stipulated in Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National

(b) Related statutes;

Basic Act

Article 45-2 (Request for Correction, etc.)

In cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return may request the competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and amount of the national tax which has been filed for the initial return and revised return within three years after the statutory due date of return elapses (where the tax is determined or corrected under the provisions of each tax Act, referring to the tax base and amount of tax after the determination

1. Where the tax base and amount of tax on a return of tax base (referred to the tax base and amount of tax on such decision or rectification, if such decision or rectification is made under the provisions of each tax-related Act), exceed those to be returned under the tax-related Acts;

A person who has filed a tax base return for individual use right within the statutory due date of return, or who has the tax base and amount of national taxes decided upon, may request a decision or correction within two months from the date he/she becomes aware of occurrence of the cause, regardless of the period referred to in paragraph (1), if any of the following causes occurs

1. Where, in the initial return, determination or correction, the transaction or act, etc. which is the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of tax, becomes final and conclusive as different by a final judgment (including any reconciliation or other act having the same effect as the judgment) in the lawsuit related thereto;

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

No national tax for indemnity may be levied after the period prescribed in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That if the mutual agreement procedures are in progress under the provisions of the treaty concluded to prevent double taxation (hereinafter referred to as the “tax treaty”), Article 25 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall apply:

1. For 10 years from the date on which the national tax is assessable, in case where a taxpayer evades the national tax or obtains a deduction by falsity or other unlawful means;

2. If the taxpayer fails to file a written tax base return within the legal return term, for seven years from the day on which the national tax is assessable;

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and

In the case of each of the following subparagraphs, a decision of correction or other necessary disposition may be made according to the relevant decision, judgment or mutual agreement until one year has passed from the date on which a decision or judgment under subparagraph 1 becomes final or mutual agreement under subparagraph 2 is reached, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1):

1. Where a decision or judgment is made on an objection or request for examination under Chapter VII, request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, or litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act;

C. Determination

Pursuant to Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where any transaction, act, etc., which is the basis of calculating the tax base and the amount of tax initially reported, determined or corrected, becomes final and conclusive by a ruling on the relevant lawsuit, a request for correction may be made within 2 months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the relevant cause, regardless of the period stipulated in paragraph (1). In cases where a dispute arises with respect to the transaction or act, etc., which is the basis of calculating the tax base and the amount of tax initially reported, determined or corrected, and becomes final and conclusive by a ruling, the person liable for duty payment may file a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes even after the expiration of the exclusion period of the right to impose national tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du7006, Jan.

In this case, even though global income tax, value-added tax, and special consumption tax were imposed on the sales amount of ○○○○ operated by the Plaintiffs, but the period of exclusion of the right to impose national tax has expired due to disputes over the sales amount of ○○○○○○○○○○ in the lawsuit involving the above-mentioned value-added tax and special consumption tax, the above disposition imposing global income tax should also be determined according to the sales amount of ○○○○○○○○○ in which the amount of sales amount of ○○○○○○○ was reduced by the judgment, and partial revocation of the above-added tax and special consumption tax became final and conclusive by the judgment. However, even if the Plaintiffs’ claim for correction in this case was made after the expiration of the limitation period of the right to impose national tax on the above global income tax, it is lawful as a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes even if the claim for correction in this case was made after the expiration of the limitation period of the right to impose global income tax, the Defendant did not comply with the legal grounds for correction request.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified, and each of them is accepted.