Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan20369 ( October 04, 2013)

Any disposition to renew the same disposition as that of the previous disposition is illegal disposition contrary to the binding force of the administrative appeal ruling, unless there is a special reason not to do so.

With respect to whether a disposition is contrary to the binding force of the decision on administrative appeal (the same as the judgment of the court of first instance), it affects only the judgment on the specific grounds for illegality such as the previous disposition and the recognition and judgment of the facts constituting the premise thereof, i.e., disposition, etc., in this case, it is an illegal disposition contrary to the binding force of the decision, since it is a reason recognized as identical to the specific grounds

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2013Nu3003 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

BAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan20369 decided October 4, 2013

September 4, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OOO(including additional tax) of capital gains tax belonging to the year 2001 against the Plaintiff on February 17, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court's reasoning is stated in this decision is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a)the following shall be added between conduct 6 and 7 of the first instance judgment:

In a case where the tax authority recognizes the grounds for objection in the process of appeal regarding a tax disposition as justifiable and accordingly made necessary disposition, it cannot reverse the same matter without any justifiable reason in light of the purport of the provisions, such as Article 5(1) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which recognize the objection system and the method of correction accordingly, and re-re-re-confisuate the previous disposition. Thus, as long as the tax authority ex officio cancels the tax disposition by deeming the grounds for objection in the procedure of filing an objection regarding a tax disposition as justifiable, it is not allowed to reverse it without any justifiable reason and re-confise the previous disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1020, Sept. 30

B. Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, "The acquisition value of the real estate of this case is an OOO," which is "the acquisition value of the real estate of this case is an OOO," shall be "the acquisition value of the real estate of this case is an OO.".

C. Article 20 of the first instance court's fifth decision provides that "The specific grounds for illegality of the previous dispositions of this case" shall be construed as "the grounds for illegality regarding the transfer income of the right to sell this case, which can be assessed as identical to the specific grounds for illegality of the previous dispositions of this case".

D. Article 12-13 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "When considering the various circumstances shown in the circumstances of this case, without any other evidence, considering all other circumstances, the part " without any other evidence" shall be determined by taking into account the evidence submitted by the defendant and the circumstances of its assertion."

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.