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

Cheong-gu Office

D. The Defendant withdraws the money that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff. The Defendant returned the money that the Defendant received to the Plaintiff, and terminate the attached account, etc.

A. The plaintiff operated the BB industry corporation from OO-Eup OO-type 383-2, and closed on June 30, 1997.

B. On April 5, 2001, the Defendant disposed of OOOO as bonus to the Plaintiff, the representative of BB industry corporation, and imposed global income tax OOO(including additional tax) on the Plaintiff in 197.

C. On November 5, 2004, the Defendant seized their respective claims against the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the CC Bank, and the Plaintiff’s insurance claims against the DaD Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (former trade name: EEE Life Insurance Co., Ltd.) on October 7, 2004.

D. On July 31, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to collect the global income tax OOO(including additional tax) and additional OOOO(additional tax) from the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 31 subparagraph 13 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 8832 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20623 of Feb. 22, 2008), the extinctive prescription of the BB industry corporation shall be completed five years after the cessation of business, considering that the insurance proceeds, etc. of security insurance, the amount of which is less than three million won, and the personal balance of which is less than 1.2 million won, shall not be seized, the amount imposed by the Defendant shall be revoked, and the seizure shall be terminated since the seizure is null and void, and the money received by the Defendant shall be returned (the cancellation of the imposition amount shall be canceled as the cancellation of the seizure disposition, and the claim for the return shall be made in advance as the claim for the return of the collection amount).

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

As the Plaintiff did not go through the pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the part that disputes the imposition of global income tax among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

With respect to the part on which the defendant's revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax is sought, whether it is legitimate ex officio in relation to the part on which the defendant's main safety defenses, revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax,

(1) As to the claim for cancellation of global income tax imposition, collection, and attachment disposition

According to Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where an administrative litigation is instituted against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts, a request for evaluation or adjudgment, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes, shall be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known. Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates the National Tax Collection Act as one of the tax-related Acts, and the National Tax Collection Act provides for the seizure and cancellation thereof as the procedure for disposition on default under Articles 24(1), 53, and 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, a

However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit via the filing of civil petitions for grievances against the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Defendant and did not undergo necessary pre-trial procedures under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the part seeking revocation of global income tax imposition, collection, and seizure disposition among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(2) As to the claim for return of the collection amount

Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition or a lawsuit seeking a formation judgment ordering an administrative agency to directly conduct an administrative disposition having the same effect as the administrative agency rendered a certain administrative disposition is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200 delivered on September 30, 197).

Therefore, the claim for the return of the collection amount among the lawsuit in this case constitutes a lawsuit seeking the return of the collection amount to the defendant, who is an administrative agency, and constitutes a performance suit, and thus, is unlawful (in addition, even if prior to being a party suit, it shall be sought against the Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff did not comply with the order of preparation for clarification on September 21, 2013 ordering correction of the purport of the claim

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of the lawsuits (the plaintiff shall make a request for revocation to the defendant again, and file a lawsuit after going through the procedure of a prior trial by the Tax Tribunal, etc.) and the order.