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

Cheong-gu Office

On April 9, 2013, the defendant's decision to designate the secondary taxpayer of OO Co., Ltd. for the plaintiff on April 9, 2013 and the subsequent decision to impose the value-added tax for the second year of 2010 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2010 is revoked.

A.OOO(hereinafter referred to as "OOO") operated gas stations (hereinafter referred to as "the gas stations in this case") on June 28, 2010, and closed on June 30, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff is registered in the register of shareholders as shareholders of 7,000 shares out of 10,000 shares issued by the instant company (hereinafter “instant shares”).

C. Meanwhile, from November 22, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the Defendant investigated the instant company into the suspicion of receiving the processed tax invoice, and on February 12, 2013, notified the instant company of the rectification and notification of the KRW 200 and the KRW OO of the corporate tax for the business year 2010.

D. Since then, the company of this case failed to pay the value-added tax and corporate tax that was corrected and notified as above, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer on the ground that the plaintiff constitutes the oligopolistic shareholder of the company of this case at the time when the liability to pay the value-added tax and the corporate tax was established, and imposed the value-added OO and the corporate tax OO (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection against the Defendant on July 9, 2013, but was dismissed on August 7, 2013, and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on November 4, 2013, but was dismissed on May 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion

On March 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) decided the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of the instant company; and (b) notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should impose value-added tax OOO and corporate tax OO; (c) the notice of imposition of corporate tax was directly received by the Plaintiff on March 31, 2013; and (d) the Plaintiff’s notice of imposition of value-added tax was received on April 1, 2013. However, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on July 9, 2013 after the lapse of 90 days from the date of the Plaintiff’s filing of an objection. The instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed on the ground that it was filed without due process of the prior trial, and ought

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under Article 55 (1) shall be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18 (1), Article 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act." Thus, an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of a disposition of taxation shall be subject to the requisite principle of ex officio ex officio ex officio under the Framework Act on National Taxes, unlike the discretionary ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio principle of administrative litigation applicable to a general administrative litigation. In such a case, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful, and if the request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, such administrative litigation shall not be deemed to have gone through the necessary ex officio procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu80

2) On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff received notice of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax according to the instant disposition on the following facts: (i) the Defendant received 30 OOO No. 2, 3, 100, 200, 3,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s 13,000,000,000,000,000 3,000,000: (ii) the Plaintiff received 13,000,000,0000,0000,000,000 1,003,000,000,000: (iii) the Plaintiff received 9,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.