The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff concerning the disposition of imposing corporate tax for the business year 2004 shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 22-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “Any rectification that increases the amount of tax initially finalized under tax-related Acts shall not affect any rights and duties relationship under this Act or other tax-related Acts with respect to the amount of tax initially finalized.”

In light of the language and text of the above provision and the purport of the above provision are to restrict any objection against the amount of tax in the initial return or decision that cannot be raised any longer due to the lapse of the objection period or the period for filing a request for correction, etc., if a request for increase or correction is made, the original return or decision would lose its independent existence value due to the absorption of the disposition for increase or correction, and in principle, the disposition for increase or decision would lose its independent existence value due to the absorption of the original return or decision, and a taxpayer may assert both illegal grounds for the initial return or decision in the appeal litigation. However, even if the period of objection or the period for filing a request for correction cannot be claimed with respect to the amount of tax that cannot be raised any longer due to the lapse of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17390 Decided May 14, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2008Du22280 Decided April 14, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Du9808 Decided April 14, 201, etc.). 2. A.

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: ① the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax of 2,649,49,491,491, 2003 corporate tax of 3,981,470,934, and corporate tax of 2004 of 34,402,958,92929,929, and corporate tax of 2004; ② the director of Busan Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data for the Plaintiff after conducting the regular investigation of corporate tax of 2002 to 2005, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data for the Plaintiff on December 5, 2006, respectively.