early 2010 Heavy3078 ( October 30, 2011)

It does not constitute grounds for filing a subsequent request for correction by judgment.

In the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, only the court made a decision on the principle of taxation for the confirmation of evaded tax amount related to the crime, and did not have any decision on the existence of transaction or its legal effect, so the facts acknowledged in the final and conclusive judgment in criminal case do not

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2011Guhap583. Revocation of a request for rectification, such as transfer income tax,

jAA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

April 12, 2012

April 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 10, 2010, such as capital gains tax, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a false real estate sales contract with the purport that the Plaintiff, even though it actually transferred KRW 000,00-0,000,000,000 and 832.2,00,000,000,000,000 won, was transferred; and (b) on April 30, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for transfer income tax for the real estate of this case using the false contract.

B. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000, capital gains tax of KRW 000,000, capital gains tax of KRW 000, which was calculated based on the actual transfer value of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff paid this.

C. As above, the Plaintiff was convicted of evading capital gains tax of 000 won by committing an unlawful act using a false real estate sales contract as seen above by being indicted and convicted by the Incheon District Court 2008 Highest 0000, which was then appealed, and the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax to be paid by the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2008No0000) is calculated on the basis of the standard market price so long as the value reported by the Plaintiff is not verified as the actual transaction price, so the amount of capital gains tax evaded by the Plaintiff is KRW 00,000 and the portion exceeding this is not guilty. The above judgment was finalized on January 28, 2010 as it became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”).

D. On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction on the ground that the transfer income tax to be paid by the Plaintiff was determined as KRW 000,000, and that the amount corresponding to the difference among the transfer income tax and resident tax already paid to the Defendant was refunded. However, on June 10, 2010, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the said request for correction on the ground that it does not fall under the subject of a request for correction under Article 45-2 of the Framework

E. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, caused an appeal to the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on August 26, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers in the event of a natural disaster) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the Plaintiff, which was a key issue whether the Plaintiff’s transfer income amount of the instant real estate would be either the standard market price and the actual transaction price, the Plaintiff’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on a different premise is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assessment based on the actual transaction price is unlawful, even though the amount of transfer income tax on the instant real estate should be calculated based on the standard market price if the amount reported by the transferor is not verified based on the actual transaction price. This decision was rendered to determine the transfer income tax amount to be paid by the Plaintiff based on the actual transaction price. This constitutes “when the transaction or act, etc., which is the reason for a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7837 of

(b) Related statutes;

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

Article 45-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return or who has received a determination of tax base and amount of national taxes may request the determination or correction within two months from the date on which he becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs," and provides that "the first declaration, determination or correction (hereinafter referred to as "the first declaration, etc.") of the tax base and amount of taxes are different by the final and conclusive judgment (including reconciliation or other acts having uniformity with the judgment) in the lawsuit against them." As such, the purport of the subsequent request for correction system lies in 70 cases where there are changes in the tax base and amount of taxes due to certain reasons after the establishment of tax liability, so that the first declaration of tax base and amount of taxes can no longer be deemed to have been made until the final and conclusive judgment on the grounds of the subsequent request for correction becomes final and conclusive by the Supreme Court for the sake of 20th judgment or ex post facto declaration of tax base and amount of taxes."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.