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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of refusal to take corrective measures against the plaintiff on September 17, 2012 is revoked.

"A. On March 27, 2004, Korea-B established the Plaintiff by investing in kind each of the real estate listed below (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case"), including the above establishment, on January 31, 201, when operating the OB as a opening and making soup OB 169 POB OB OB, POB OB, closed on January 31, 201, and established the Plaintiff on January 5, 2012."

B. On March 9, 2012, Korea-B: (a) filed a preliminary return on the capital gains tax on the investment in kind of each of the instant real estate by having the purchaser as the Plaintiff; (b) but did not pay the preliminary return by March 31, 2012; and (c) on May 11, 2012, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax OOO (including additional payments for arrears).

C. On August 9, 2012, Korea-B filed a request for correction of the transfer income tax reported as above on the ground that the Defendant invested each of the instant real estate in kind in the Plaintiff may be subject to the carried-over taxation pursuant to Article 32 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

"However, on September 17, 2012, the defendant established the plaintiff by investing in kind the real estate of this case at the expiration of one year after the closure of the CCC making soup, and in light of the fact that the plaintiff was set up as a thing to transfer the mountain (land and building) of the soup seter after closure of the business, the defendant rejected the BB's request for correction on the ground that it does not meet the requirements for carried forward taxation on the transfer income tax for conversion into the corporation (hereinafter "the disposition of this case")," and (e) BB requested a review on February 12, 2013, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on June 12, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that since the other party to the disposition of this case is BB, the plaintiff has no standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition of this case.

First of all, according to whether there exists a disposition against the Plaintiff, the Defendant merely issued the instant disposition to HanB and did not impose the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, and thus the Defendant’s refusal disposition against the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff seeks, is nonexistent. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has no disposition subject to the administrative litigation seeking revocation.

Even if the Plaintiff acted on the part of the Plaintiff seeking a disposition against the Defendant HanB, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it is filed by a non-party to the administrative disposition, in order for a third party, who is not the other party to the administrative disposition, to dispute the administrative disposition, where the interests protected by law due to the administrative disposition are infringed. The legally protected interests in this context refer to the cases where there are individual, direct and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9651, Dec. 27, 2007).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.