A person to whom the real estate acquired and leased income accrues;

The disposition that was made by the actual supervisor of the plaintiff company to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer but did not take the procedure for the registration and confirmed that part of the building was leased to the plaintiff and the rental income belongs to the plaintiff is a legitimate disposition.

Article 40 (Business Year of Profit and Loss in Corporate Tax Act)

[ Jeju District Court Decision 2005Guhap1170 ( February 7, 2007)]

1. The plaintiff's first selective claim is dismissed.

2. The part concerning the second selective claims in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The selective claim No. 1: The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 9,119,321 against the plaintiff on April 5, 2004 shall be revoked.

2 Selective claims: The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of KRW 9,119,321 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a company that runs a business such as housing construction and real estate lease in ○○ City ○○-dong 262-8.

B. On July 5, 1995, with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List, which was originally owned by ○○○○○, the ownership transfer registration based on the successful bid due to the voluntary auction on July 5, 1995 was made in the name of Kim○○○ on July 5, 199, the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration was made on January 30, 201, the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration was made on March 31, 2003, and the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name was made on March 31, 200.

C. On December 27, 2001, the Defendant disposed of the Plaintiff Company as follows on the premise that the Plaintiff Company acquired de facto ownership of the instant real estate and exercised its rights.

(1) The defendant, although 186,216,494 won of the leased income amount was generated in 2002 as to the real estate of this case, calculated the above leased income amount as profit on the ground that the plaintiff company omitted it at the time of corporate tax return, and imposed corporate tax of 26,07,060 on March 2, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case on March 2, 2004"). On the other hand, the defendant decided that ○○○ was the actual manager of the plaintiff company, and issued a disposition of notice of change in income amount of 186,216,494 won on the premise that the omitted amount was attributed to ○○○.

(2) After that, on April 5, 2004, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff Company lent KRW 655,00,000 for the instant real estate in 2002 to ○○○; (b) deemed that the provisional payment interest was paid KRW 58,456,849 for the instant real estate in the gross income; (c) included 44,238,166 for the inclusion of the interest paid in the gross income in the gross income; and (d) additionally imposed KRW 35,217,320 for the omitted debt of KRW 1,150,000 for the inclusion of KRW 35,217,320 for the inclusion of the corporate tax in the gross income; and (d) made a disposition of imposition of corporate tax for 2002 for KRW 61,294,380 for the total amount of KRW 58,456,849 for the said provisional payment to ○○,584,9858.

(3) After that, on September 1, 2006, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the defendant considered the rental income amount of 185,00,000 won, and revoked the interest rate of 58,456,849 won in the initial calculation of earnings and the interest rate of 4,238,166 won in the calculation of earnings and the interest rate of 44,238,166 won in the calculation of losses, respectively, and additionally revised corporate tax of 2002 to 9,119,321 won in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses in the amount of 60,19,321

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 2-2, Eul 7 evidence, Eul 17 and 19 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The time when the Plaintiff Company acquired the ownership of the instant real estate is the time when it completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 31, 2003 or around December 2002, and before that time, Kim○○, the former owner, acquired the rent income from the lease of the instant real estate. The Defendant’s disposition imposing corporate tax in December 27, 2001 on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the de facto ownership of the instant real estate on December 27, 2001.

(2) However, the original disposition of April 5, 2004, which is the initial disposition of March 2, 2004, has the nature of the original disposition of March 2, 2004. Since the original disposition of April 5, 2004, which was absorbed into the original disposition of March 2, 2004, became extinct, and the original disposition of April 5, 2004, remaining KRW 9,119,321 due to the ex officio reduction disposition of September 1, 206, the first selective disposition of April 1, 2004, the Defendant should revoke the disposition of KRW 9,119,321, which was issued against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2004. On the contrary, if it is deemed that the original disposition of September 1, 2006 and the revised disposition of March 21, 200, the Defendant should be deemed to have revoked the disposition of KRW 31,209,3219.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the subject matter of lawsuit

Article 22-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an increase in the amount of tax originally determined under tax-related Acts shall not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or other tax-related Acts with respect to the amount of tax originally determined." However, even if a correction is made, the original disposition that has already occurred in the absence of dispute, or the collection disposition that has already been made in the original disposition shall maintain its effect even if a correction is made thereafter, it shall not be deemed a legal provision that determines the amount of tax itself. Therefore, in the event of an original disposition and an increase or decrease disposition, it is reasonable to view that the subject of dispute

In addition, as in the instant case, where a disposition of reduction was taken after a disposition of increase was taken, such as the instant disposition, the disposition of reduction is not different from the disposition of increase, but merely a change in the disposition of increase.

Therefore, in this case, the defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 9,119,321 against the plaintiff on April 5, 2004 (hereinafter "the disposition in this case").

(2) Determination as to the first selective claim

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, it can be recognized that there was a fact that the amount equivalent to KRW 185,00,000 of the rental income in the year 2002 on the real estate of this case. Ultimately, the issue in this case is whether the plaintiff company can be deemed to have acquired the de facto ownership on the real estate of this case around December 27, 2001.

As to this point, in light of the purport of the whole pleadings on ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate’s name, 5 through 7, 9 through 13, and 20 evidence, the Plaintiff Company entered into a pre-sale agreement with 1 billion won on December 13, 201 with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate Claim for Transfer of Ownership on the ground that the pre-sale agreement was made between ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was de facto in possession of the real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Estate’s Real Property’s Real Estate Rights.

Therefore, the plaintiff's selective claim 1 premised on the fact that the plaintiff acquired de facto ownership only around March 31, 2003 or December 2002 is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the second selective claim

On the other hand, the second selective claim seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 9,119,321 on April 5, 2004 is unlawful, since the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is the disposition of imposition of KRW 9,119,321 on the other premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the second selective claims in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

1

Indication of Real Estate

1. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 509의 2

Large 1060.9 square meters

2. Five floors neighborhood living facilities of the above ground reinforced concrete mentmen, flat slabs, roof;

1st floor 665.75 square meters (43.35 square meters in neighboring residential facilities and 232.40 square meters in parking lots)

2nd floor 702.59 square meters ( dental clinics)

3rd floor 702.59 square meters (in-house clinics)

4 702.59 square meters on a 4-story (Abridge)

5 stories 702.59С (Maternate and Maternate)

A basement 863.25 square meters (parking 593.75 square meters in a parking lot, and 269.50 square meters in a machine room) shall be completed.

○ Corporate Tax Act

Article 40 (Business Year of Profit and Loss)

(1) The fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation shall be the fiscal year which includes the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are settled.

(2) Matters necessary for the scope of the business year of accrual of earnings and losses under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

○ Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 68 (Business Year in which Sale Profits and Losses, etc. of Assets accrue)

(1) In the application of the provisions of Article 40 (1) and (2) of the Act, the fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses accruing from the transfer of assets shall be the fiscal year which includes the date under each of the

3. Transfer of assets other than commodities, etc.: The date the price is settled: Provided, That where a transfer registration (including registration) of ownership, etc. is filed before the price is settled, or the relevant assets are delivered or the other party uses and benefits from the relevant assets, the date of such transfer registration (including the date of registration), delivery, or use and benefit from the relevant assets, whichever

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du26339 [2.04]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief within the statutory period (the appellate brief submitted by the Plaintiff was received on January 29, 2008), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Final Appeal are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment Jeju 2007Nu94 ( November 30, 2007)]

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.

1. At first option, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 9,119,321 against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2004 is revoked.

2 Selectively, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 9,119,321 against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2004 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "as to the plaintiff company," the third party 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "as to the right ○○," and "as to the third party 6th party 18 of the judgment," the "as to the third party 9 and 10 of the judgment," and the "as to the third party 9 and 10 of the evidence are stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is not trustable," and as to the addition, it is like the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's selective claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the second selective claims among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed as unlawful. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.