Seoul Administrative Court 2015Gudan20520 (Law No. 19, 2016)

(As stated in the judgment of the court of first instance) Any subsequent request for correction under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be made to the party to the lawsuit.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) If there is room for dispute over interpretation, it cannot be said that the defect is evident, and the subsequent request for correction as prescribed in Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is limited to the party concerned.

2016Nu65437 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct capital gains tax

Dog Dog

O Head of tax office

December 1, 2016

December 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the imposition of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on July 2, 2012 by the defendant is invalid. The defendant's refusal to correct capital gains tax against the plaintiff on March 18, 2015 is invalid.

Preliminary claim: The defendant's refusal to correct the transfer income tax against the plaintiff on March 18, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except where "within 15th of the judgment of the court of first instance" is "within 15th of the judgment".

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Judges in fixed form of judge

Judges Kim Uniform-type

Judges Nam Yang-yang