(a) Where a tax authority has made a decision to correct a reduction, the object of an appeal litigation and the criteria for determining whether the period of litigation is observed

B. Whether a taxation that did not deduct the amount of special deduction for capital gains from gains on transfer is null and void as a matter of course (negative)

A. Where the tax authority issued a decision to revoke or reduce part of the initial disposition by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the head of the National Tax Tribunal in the appeal procedure, and accordingly issued a decision to revise the contents of the disposition to revoke or reduce part of the initial disposition, the correction disposition is not the initial disposition and the initial disposition, but the substance of the disposition is not the change of the initial disposition, and thereby, has the favorable effect on the taxpayer, thereby bringing about partial revocation of the amount of tax. Therefore, where the determination of the correction that remains illegal in the remaining part of the original disposition, the decision of correction subject to appeal shall be the remaining part of the original disposition, which is not revoked by the decision of correction, and therefore, the decision of correction shall be the basis of the initial disposition. In this case, whether the period of filing a lawsuit is complied with shall be determined based

B. Even if the tax authority erred by failing to deduct the special deduction amount for capital gains from gains from transfer in calculating the tax base of capital gains tax, such taxation cannot be a disposition to nullify it as a matter of course.

(a) Articles 19 and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 1 of the Act and Article 23 of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu50 Decided July 8, 1986 (Gong1986,1001) 85Nu740 Decided April 14, 1987 (Gong1987,815) 85Nu599 Decided December 22, 1987 (Gong1988,353)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu7175 delivered on November 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of supplementary appeal stated in the supplementary appellate brief are examined to the extent of supplement in the grounds of appeal).

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the original disposition of 156,141,780 won for the plaintiff on October 4, 198 and the original disposition of 31,053,420 won for the defense of the plaintiff was defective, and the plaintiff filed an appeal against the National Tax Tribunal through a request for review. On June 30, 1989, part of the above disposition is illegal, and the disposition of 236,070,29 won for the correction of the original disposition of 196,000 won for the above disposition of 196,00 won is not for correction of the original disposition of 198,000 won for the above disposition of 196,000 won for the first time. The court below's determination that the correction of the disposition of 196,000 won for the above disposition of 196,000 won for the first time after the correction of the disposition of 196,000 won for the above disposition of 29,0.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In calculating the tax base of the transfer income tax of this case, even if the Defendant erred by failing to deduct the special deduction amount of transfer income based on the calculation of the acquisition value as it did not have the acquisition value since the actual transfer value was the gains from transfer, and did not deduct the special deduction amount of transfer income from the transfer margin, such taxation cannot be the disposition of invalidity per annum.

In the same purport, the court below was just in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s taxation disposition of this case, which did not deduct the amount of special deduction for capital gains, was null and void as a matter of course, and there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won