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

The disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2004 and the year 2006, which the defendant of the Gu office was against the plaintiff in December 2009, shall be revoked.

In 209, the Defendant conducted a corporate integration investigation with respect to NO in 2009, and disposed of the Plaintiff as dividends of KRW 100,000,000 for the year 2006 and KRW 200,000 for the year 200,000 for the Plaintiff. On December 1, 2009, the head of Dongjak District Tax Office imposed the amount of each of the above as global income tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2004 and the global income tax OO for the year 2006 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

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

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without going through the procedure of the previous trial, including a petition for trial, on the disposition of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The Plaintiff is a person who did not undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes regarding the instant disposition. However, on or before December 2009, the Plaintiff was notified of the instant disposition, but confirmed that the instant disposition was inappropriate on September 2014, which obtained taxation data from Nembon Co., Ltd. related to the instant disposition. The Plaintiff intended to submit a request for taxpayer protection to the person in charge of handling grievances on or before September 30, 2014, but the Plaintiff submitted the request for grievance settlement to the Seoul Regional Tax Office around December 16, 2014, based on the guidance of the person in charge of handling grievances and the person in charge of handling grievances of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and the request for grievance settlement had been dismissed on or after the expiration of the time limit for filing the request. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could properly process the grievance settlement of the Plaintiff, without undergoing a series of procedures for national tax litigation, and thus, the Plaintiff did not lawfully file the instant lawsuit.

2) According to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against the disposition of national taxes may not be filed without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act: Provided, That in the case of tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were conducted in the course of a phased and developmental process, and are related to each other, and thus, the tax authority has changed the taxation disposition subject to such disposition during the proceeding of a tax litigation, and the same reason is common. In the case where several persons are liable for the same obligation through the same administrative disposition, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity for the National Tax Tribunal to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, and if there is a justifiable reason, such as where the taxpayer and the taxpayer are more likely to undergo a prior trial proceeding, the Plaintiff may file a request for revocation of the disposition without going through a prior trial procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du14, etc.).

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.