The rejection of a request for correction against a post-report shall not be subject to an appeal litigation.

The rejection of a request for correction against a retroactive report shall not be subject to an appeal litigation.

Article 45-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Gudan2407 Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

@@@

00. Head of tax office

November 14, 2017

November 28, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's refusal to correct the transfer income tax for the year 2013, which was made against the plaintiff on December 26, 2016, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired Gyeonggi-do***** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the transfer value * * * * * * * * * * *00 * * * * * * * * * * * the conversion value * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * ** * * * * * *

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the actual acquisition value of the instant land is KRW****0 million and filed a request for correction with the Defendant for refund of capital gains tax**,*****,**,******, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for correction is different from the transferor of the sales contract and the copy of the register submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no objective data to prove the actual acquisition value***. The Defendant rejected the above request for correction (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on *. However, on 2017 *.*. The Plaintiff was dismissed on *.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense

Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may file a request for correction, thereby limiting the person subject to a request for correction to a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return. The Plaintiff filed a tax base return for the transfer income of the instant land with the Defendant after the statutory due date of return. Since the Plaintiff filed a tax base return for the transfer income of the instant land * December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff did not have the right to file a request for correction under Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Since a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction is illegal and thus the tax authority does not have a duty to either determine or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or take a disposition of refusal, it cannot be deemed a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal, even if the tax authority refuses correction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44830, Mar. 12, 20

Article 45-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes recognizes a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return, and such legal principle applies to cases where a tax base return is not filed within the statutory due date of return.

2) Article 105(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014) provides that "a resident who transfers assets under Article 94(1)1, 2, and 4 shall report to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment within two months from the end of the month in which the transfer date falls, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the tax base of transfer income calculated under Article 92(2) shall be reported to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment within two months from the end of the month in which the transfer date falls, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since the disposition in this case is not subject to appeal against the plaintiff's refusal to request for correction, as seen earlier. * Two months from the end of the month in which the date of the transfer date belongs (the date of November 30, 2013) and two months from the end of the month in which the plaintiff filed a tax base return on the tax base of transfer income.

3. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.