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

가. 원고는 2002. 5.경 〇〇시 〇〇구 〇〇동 75 소재 △△마을 △△동 제1, 2층 중 일부 지분(이하 '이 사건 상가'라 한다)을 처 김AA, 처남 김BB, 처남의 배우자 민CC, 이DD(이하 '명의수탁자들'라 한다)의 명의로 취득하였다가 이 사건 상가를 2002. 12경 추EE에게 매도하였으나 2003.경 위 매매계약이 해제되어 추EE으로부터 위약금 285,000,000원을 수령하였고, 다시 이 사건 상가를 2004. 7.경 송FF에게 매도하였으나 2004.경 위 매매계약이 해제되어 송FF으로부터 위약금 360,090,000원을 수령하였다.

B. The defendant's total sum of 645,090,000 won received by the plaintiff is 645,000 won under the former Income Tax Act ( January 30, 2009)

On February 7, 2009, global income tax of 155,849,809, global income tax of 2003, and global income tax of 185,628,353 won was decided and notified to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition") by considering the plaintiff's other income under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Act (amended by Act No. 9346) as the plaintiff's other income.

C. On February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. On April 30, 2009, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to conduct a reinvestigation to add the Plaintiff’s other income (hereinafter “the re-audit decision of this case”). On June 19, 2009, the Defendant was served a notice on the purport that the amount of global income tax for the year 2003, total of KRW 135,467,658, and total of KRW 185,628,353, total amount of global income tax for the year 2004, should be reduced to KRW 321,096,011, and the Plaintiff was served on June 23, 2009.

D. On July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff again filed a request for pre-assessment review on July 17, 2009, but the Defendant, on August 19, 2009, notified 20,382,151 won (i.e., total income tax for 2003 (15,849,809, 135,467,658 won as originally notified - 135,65,658 won as corrected for reduction), and 0 won (185,628,353 won as initially notified 185,628,353 - 185,628,353 won as corrected) of the result of the pre-assessment review (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. On November 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the instant disposition. On February 8, 2010, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s said request.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 1 to No. 3-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the re-audit of this case takes effect as a decision on the request for review by supplementing the contents of the decision by the defendant's subsequent disposition which is the disposition agency, it is reasonable to view that the period for filing an administrative litigation following the decision on re-audit is calculated from the date when the plaintiff is notified of the subsequent disposition. However, the lawsuit of this case was filed on April 22, 2010, much more than 90 days after June 23, 2009, which is the date when the plaintiff was notified of the result of the tax investigation, which is the subsequent disposition according to the

B. Determination

The re-audit decision, which is conducted in practice as a type of the decision on the objection, takes the form of re-auditing the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on the whole or part of a single taxable unit, to make a subsequent disposition, such as correcting the tax base and tax amount or maintaining the initial disposition according to the result. Accordingly, the subject and scope of the appeal can be specified in the next stage only after receiving the notice of the subsequent disposition.

Therefore, the re-audit decision shall take effect as a decision on the objection, etc. by supplementing the contents of the disposition after the disposition of the disposition agency. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the period of the request for review, the period of the request for adjudgment, or the period of filing a lawsuit of administrative litigation according to the re-audit decision should be calculated from the date when the petitioner, etc. is notified of the subsequent disposition (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12

In light of the above legal principles, according to the decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, who made a request for review against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service against which the plaintiff raised an objection to the initial disposition, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the results of a tax investigation to inform the plaintiff of the anticipated total amount of tax to be corrected on June 19, 2009. Accordingly, since the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the result of the pre-assessment review to confirm and notify the amount of tax to be corrected on August 19, 2009 due to defects in the plaintiff's request for pre-assessment review, the plaintiff can specify and determine the object and scope of objection in the next stage litigation procedure only after receiving the notification of the result of the pre-assessment review, after receiving the above notice. Accordingly, the re-assessment decision in this case becomes effective as a decision on the request for review by supplementing the contents thereof by the notification of the result of the pre-assessment review, which is a subsequent disposition of the disposition agency. Thus, it is reasonable to deem the period for filing administrative litigation as the date the plaintiff

However, Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.: Provided, That where the proviso of Article 18 (1) or where other claims for an administrative appeal may be made, or where an administrative agency has mistakenly notified that a request for an administrative appeal may be made, the period from the date when the original copy of the written ruling is served shall be reckoned from the date when the written ruling is served." According to subparagraph 2-2 of Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, if a notice of tax investigation results raises an objection against a notice, a request for a pre-assessment review may be made within 30 days from the date when the notice is received, and if another objection is raised against the decision on pre-assessment review, a request for a pre-assessment review may be

“......” The Plaintiff may be served on the Plaintiff by inserting an expression to the effect, as seen earlier.

As seen in the instant case, the Plaintiff has already filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the entire initial disposition and received a decision of reexamination of the instant case. As such, the Defendant’s statement in the notice of tax investigation results should be deemed to be the case where the Defendant, as a procedure for objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes, has already been notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service that it may undergo a request for examination or a request for judgment. Therefore, the period for filing the instant suit shall be within 90 days counting from the date when the Plaintiff was served with the certified copy of the decision of dismissing the request for examination as of February 8, 2010. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 22, 2010, which is apparent that the Plaintiff had not passed 90 days thereafter, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is lawful. Accordingly, the Defendant

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 332,681,00 in return for the title trust to the title trustee, it should be recognized as necessary expenses.

(2) In order to secure the personal debt of KimB, the title trustee of the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff established a collateral security on the instant commercial building owned by the Plaintiff. However, as KimB did not repay its debt and the instant commercial building was at the risk of voluntary auction, the Plaintiff paid KRW 419,51,00 to the Plaintiff for the personal debt of KimB to prevent the instant commercial building from being sold at will, although the Plaintiff subrogated for the amount of KRW 419,51,00,00, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against KimB was not repaid due to the Plaintiff’s default, closure, deficit disposal, etc., such claim shall be deemed as bad debt, and

(3) Acquisition tax and special rural development tax paid by the Plaintiff upon acquiring the instant commercial building should be recognized as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

For the taxable year 2002, the amount paid to the trustee in return for the title trust was KRW 35,00,000, KRW 8,350,000, KRW 31,490,000, KRW 31,490,000, KRW 245,650,000, KRW 250,000, and KRW 5,500,000, KRW 251,150,000, and KRW 6,691,000 in total for the taxable year 2004, KRW 332,681,00,00 for the commercial year, and KRW 31,49,00 for the CivilCC, evidence 1,21, 14, and evidence 1-1, 1-4, and 1-4, and evidence 1-1, 2-1, 1-4, and 1-4 of each of the following grounds.

However, according to the loan certificate (No. 4) presented by the Plaintiff as documentary evidence at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for review, the amount and timing paid by the Plaintiff to the title trustee of this case are different from each other, and the loan certificate (No. 4) presented by the Plaintiff is difficult to deem that the payment was made for the title trust since the loan of KRW 135,00,000 among the title trustee was made to KimB on September 3, 2003, and there is no objective material proving that the above payment amount is the price for the title trust. There is no objective material proving that the above payment amount is the price for the title trust, and even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff paid the above payment for the title trustee as the price for the title trust, the above payment amount cannot be deemed to have been paid to the title trustee,

(2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

The plaintiff paid 17 times from December 10, 2002 to September 3, 2004 the total amount of 419,551,000 won of KimB's personal debt among the title trustees, and the claim for reimbursement amount should be regarded as bad debt as a claim that cannot be repaid due to KimB's default on payment of KimB. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted a confirmation, etc. of the bankruptcy account of KimB's household (Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4-1 to 3, evidence No. 5, and evidence No. 6) on the basis thereof.

However, even if the plaintiff is deemed to have subrogated for the personal debt of KimB, there is no objective data to prove that it is directly related to the plaintiff's business income, and in light of the above circumstances, it cannot be viewed as necessary expenses corresponding to the total income amount, that is, necessary expenses used or consumed to obtain the plaintiff's total income amount of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) As to the third argument by the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff paid KRW 85,213,00 for acquisition tax and special rural development tax while acquiring the instant commercial building, and the said amount paid was not included in the acquisition value at the time of purchase of the instant commercial building, and submitted a payment receipt of acquisition tax as documentary evidence at the time of request for examination.

However, since the acquisition value of assets purchased from a third person is an amount calculated by adding acquisition tax, registration tax, and other incidental expenses to the purchase value, as long as the sales value related to the acquisition of the commercial building of this case is not confirmed, it cannot be confirmed whether the payment receipt, such as acquisition tax, was merely included in the acquisition value of assets. The plaintiff does not submit data such as the contract for the acquisition of commercial buildings of this case, which can confirm whether the said payment amount was included in the asset value in addition to the acquisition tax payment receipt. Therefore, the plaintiff's

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.