To be an administrative disposition which is the object of appeal litigation, the right of application under the law or cooking of the administrative agency's action should be required to the people.

If an act of refusal by an administrative agency against a citizen’s request is subject to an administrative disposition that becomes the subject of an appeal litigation, the right of an administrative agency’s request under laws or cooking should be required for citizens.

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

Daegu District Court 2015Guhap24286

00

00. Head of tax office

January 27, 2016

February 27, 2106

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On December 16, 2015, the defendant revoked the rejection disposition against the plaintiff on the tax base of gift tax and the amount of tax (the "statement in the complaint" appears to be a clerical error).

1. Basic facts

A. On October 11, 2013, the Plaintiff, a spouse, donated the Ulsan 00 Gun,00 Eup 00 Dog,000 Dog 344 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on October 16, 201.

B. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff assessed the value of the instant land as KRW 230,000,000 by referring to transaction example, etc., and submitted to the Defendant a tax base return of gift tax and an order for direct payment of gift tax based on the value of donated property.

C. The Defendant determined that the value of donated property reported by the Plaintiff does not fall under the “market price” under Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and calculated the value of donated property as KRW 65,016,000 by applying the officially assessed individual land price under Article 61(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and issued the following notice to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014 (hereinafter “previous notice”).

D. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on August 26, 2014. On November 12, 2014, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s example of business transactions does not meet the requirements for appraisal base or is difficult to view it as a similar land; and (b)

E. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous notification on February 13, 2015, on June 17, 2015, the previous notification was rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that it does not constitute an administrative disposition (this Court 2015Guhap0000), and the appeal was lodged, but on November 20, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 8, 2015 (Seoul High Court 2015Nu000).

F. On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff rendered a “request for correction of the gift tax base and tax amount of KRW 230,000,000 from KRW 65,016,000 to KRW 230,000.” However, on December 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice that the Plaintiff’s request for correction was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for correction contravenes Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “instant notice”).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s calculation of the value of donated property of the instant land as the officially announced value is unfair, even though the appraised value exists in an objective and reasonable manner with respect to the instant land. As such, the Defendant asserts that the instant notification rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction is unlawful. As such, the instant notification is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal, and thus, the instant

B. Determination

1) If an administrative agency’s refusal of a citizen’s request against an administrative agency is subject to an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the right to request an administrative agency’s action is required under the law or sound reasoning. In a case where an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s request without such right to request, the rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it cannot be subject to an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du22966, Jul. 10,

Meanwhile, insofar as there is no express provision that recognizes the right to request correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes or individual tax-related Acts, the right to request correction is not recognized. Therefore, even if the tax authority respondeds to a request for correction not based on the tax-related Acts of the person liable for payment, it cannot be deemed a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18284, Feb. 25, 2010)

2) Article 45-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) and the main sentence of Article 45-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) provide that "any person who has filed a return of tax base by the statutory deadline for filing the return may file a request with the head of the competent tax office within five years after the statutory deadline for filing the initial return and the return of the national tax, in any of the following cases, for the determination or correction of the tax base and the amount of tax recorded in the return of tax base (referring to the tax base and the amount of tax after the relevant determination or correction, where any determination or correction is made pursuant to the tax-related Acts) exceed those to be reported under the tax-related Acts."

Under the premise that the value of donated property reported by the Plaintiff does not fall under the market price under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Defendant previously notified that the amount of donated property calculated by applying the officially announced value is to be reduced, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for revocation of the previous notification but the judgment of rejection became final and conclusive, and requested the Defendant to revise the gift tax base and the tax amount to be changed from KRW 65,016,000 to KRW 230,000. The Plaintiff’s claim for correction is that the amount of the gift tax should be changed to the amount of the gift tax base determined by the Defendant. However, since the Plaintiff’s claim for correction is a change in the amount of the gift tax base (if the Plaintiff received a donation from the spouse pursuant to Article 53 subparag. 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the amount of the gift tax is still changed to KRW 600,00,000 from the taxable value of donated

In addition, since the Plaintiff’s request for correction is not related to the deficit amount or refundable amount, it does not fall under the requirements of Article 45-2(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and does not fall under the requirements of Article 45-2(4) of the same Act. Furthermore, it does not fall under the requirements of special case for correction stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 79(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

3) On this point, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is a benefit to seek revocation of the instant notice, as the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax is increased due to the acquisition value of donated property determined by the Defendant when disposing of the instant land in the future and the increase in transfer margin. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, on the ground that the instant notice could have a direct impact on the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations, even if there are future circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff without any disposition imposing transfer income tax on the instant land transfer and its transfer. (In the event that the transfer income tax of the instant land is at issue in the future, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted).

4) Ultimately, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s right to file a claim for correction of the gift tax base is not recognized under laws or cooking, the Defendant’s instant notification refusing to file a claim for correction of the Plaintiff’s gift tax base does not constitute a rejection disposition subject

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.