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

A. The Plaintiff was granted a contribution income deduction for KRW 000,00, from the year-end tax settlement for wage and salary income tax for the year 2005, with respect to the new roads belonging to the pre-school of the pre-school of the P.W 1-11 ground in the Gu of Overcheon-si, 1-2, and under the P. 5th floor of the building, whose headquarters belongs to the pre-school of the P.S. (hereinafter referred to

B. The Defendant denied the said donation from the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) the instant donation does not constitute “organization established for the purpose of dissemination and other enlightenment of religion” under Article 36(1)(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009); and (b) imposed a disposition imposing KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on May 23, 201 as the correction of the error of donation deduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 18, 201, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 24, 201, and the said written decision reached the Plaintiff on November 28, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the instant disposition was imposed after the lapse of the five-year exclusion period for national tax assessment; (b) the XX church is a “organization established and registered with the competent authority for religious dissemination and other enlightenment; and (c) the Defendant previously treated the instant church as a religious organization and decided to grant a contribution deduction for the believers’s unconstitutionality; and (d) the Plaintiff’s refusal is contrary to the good faith principle; and (e) there are justifiable grounds for not imposing additional tax on the Plaintiff, and thus, the penalty tax imposition portion among the instant disposition is unreasonable.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

Since the Defendant asserts that the period for filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case has expired, it is unlawful. Thus, unlike the general administrative litigation, the administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of national taxes can only be filed within 90 days from the date when the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified (Article 56(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). As seen earlier, the fact that the decision of the Tax Tribunal on the disposition of this case reached the Plaintiff around November 28, 2011 is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed only on March 5, 2012 after the lapse of 90 days from the date when the said decision was received, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it goes against the period for filing a lawsuit of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.