심판청구기간을 준수하지 못하였거나 적법한 전심절차를 거치지 못한 것으로 인정됨[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan5889 ( October 17, 2012)
Chief Judge 2012
It is found that the period of request is not observed or that it is deemed that it was not completed due procedure.
The evidence submitted alone cannot be deemed null and void due to lack of the requirement, and rather, service by public notice is deemed lawful. Thus, prior to filing a lawsuit, the period of appeal is not observed or lawful procedure is recognized as not being followed.
2012Nu3427 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.
DoAA
Director of the District Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan5889 decided October 17, 2012
April 24, 2013
May 8, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The first instance judgment shall be revoked. The first instance judgment shall be revoked, and the defendant shall revoke the disposition of KRW 000 on July 1, 2010 against the plaintiff on July 1, 201. The first instance judgment shall be revoked, and the second disposition shall be invalid.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why this Court should be explained, and except for the addition of the decision on the plaintiff's argument that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized by this Court, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. As to the validity of the instant disposition by public notice
The plaintiff asserts that the service of the written disposition of this case did not meet the requirements of service by publication, and that the plaintiff raised an objection immediately after the plaintiff became aware of the disposition of this case, and that the service of the written disposition of this case had gone through due process of trial. However, in light of the facts and circumstances recognized in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is difficult to deem the service by publication of the written disposition of this case invalid due to lack of the requirements, and rather, it is deemed that the above service by publication was lawfully made, and that the plaintiff did not observe the period of request prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, or did not go
B. Whether to report the transfer income tax on the instant housing
The plaintiff asserts that, in relation to the conjunctive claim of this case, when the plaintiff acquired the housing of this case by exchanging it on July 6, 2005, the defendant made the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on the housing of this case, and that its defect is material and obvious and invalid. The plaintiff's previous disposition of transfer income tax cannot be viewed as null and void as 30 percent of the transfer income tax base unless it appears that there are objective circumstances to believe that the defect is subject to taxation, but the legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation, are not subject to taxation, and it can only be found that it is clear that it is subject to taxation, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be seen as externally apparent, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's previous disposition of transfer 201Du72681, Sep. 4, 2002, and that the plaintiff's previous disposition of transfer 2000 to 360 U.O.M. 21, 2012.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.