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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of each entry of Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading.

A. On October 15, 2006, AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) closed its business on September 30, 201, while engaging in passenger terminal service business.

B. The Defendant imposed four dispositions, including corporate tax and value added tax, on the instant company as follows, but the instant company did not pay this amount.

(unit: won)

No.

Items of Taxation

Taxation Period

Liability for Tax Payment

Time of establishment

Notice Amount

(This tax)

Date of Notification

Deadline for payment

Jinay

1

Corporate Tax

2010

December 31, 2010

2,916,800

201.05.02

oly 2011.31

No. 2-1

2

Value-added Tax

1, 2011

oly 2011.30

4,221,360

2011.09.06

d. 201.30

No. 2-2

3

Corporate Tax

2011

oly 2011.30

2,217,560

o October 04, 201

October 31, 201

No. 2-3

4

Value-added Tax

2011 Second Period

d. 201.30

12,575,620

2013.03.05

13.03.31

No. 2-4

Total

4 Cases

21,931,340

C. The Defendant: (a) determined that the instant company, the principal taxpayer, was incapable of paying delinquent taxes on its own property; and (b) on its shareholder registry, the Plaintiff, holding 60% of the shares of the instant company, was designated as the secondary taxpayer; and (c) imposed four dispositions, including corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(unit: won)

No.

Items of Taxation

Taxation Period

Liability for Tax Payment

Time of establishment

At the date of designation

National taxes in arrears

Second Taxpayer

Designation Date

(Date of Disposition)

Designated Amount

(1) x 60%)

Jinay

Total

(2)(3)

Principal Tax

(2)

Additional Dues

(3)

1

Corporate Tax

2010

December 31, 2010

28,450

0

28,450

November 18, 201

17,070

No. 3-1

2

Value-added Tax

1, 2011

oly 2011.30

4,398,650

4,221,360

177,290

November 18, 201

2,639,180

Eul evidence 3-2

3

Corporate Tax

2011

oly 2011.30

2,284,080

2,217,560

66,520

November 18, 201

1,370,440

Eul evidence 3-3

4

Value-added Tax

2011 Second Period

December 31, 201

12,952,880

12,575,620

377,260

2, 2013.04

7,771,720

No. 3-4

Total

4 Cases

19,664,060

19,014,540

649,520

11,798,470

D. Of the instant disposition, the imposition of KRW 17,070, KRW 17,070, KRW 2,532,810, and KRW 106,370, KRW 106,370, and KRW 1,330,530, and KRW 39,910, and KRW 39,910, were served on BB, the Plaintiff’s wife, on November 23, 2011. In addition, the imposition of KRW 2,7,545,370 and KRW 226,350 on April 25, 2013 was served on the Plaintiff’s wife, who was the Plaintiff’s wife on April 25, 2013.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Determination on the part of the claim for revocation of additional dues

ex officio, the part requesting revocation of additional dues is legitimate.

If a national tax is not paid by the due date, a surcharge or increased surcharge under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act is naturally created pursuant to the provisions of a law without a final procedure by the tax authority, and the amount thereof is determined. If the initial amount of tax is revoked or reduced, the surcharge is automatically revoked or reduced in response thereto. Thus, a notice of the surcharge or increased surcharge cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2013, Sept. 22, 2000).

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 226,350 for the second period of value-added tax on April 22, 2013 cannot be all subject to an appeal litigation, and is thus unlawful, since the part seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 17,070 for the corporate tax for the business year 2010, KRW 106,370 for the first period of the value-added tax for the business year 201, KRW 39,910 for the corporate tax for the business year 201, and KRW 226,350 for the second period of the tax year 201

B. Determination on the remainder of the revocation claim

1) Defendant’s assertion

The Plaintiff did not file a request for examination or adjudgment on the instant disposition in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, the administrative litigation on the instant disposition is unlawful as it did not go through the administrative appeals procedure.

2) Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3) Determination

No administrative litigation against any illegal tax disposition may be filed without going through a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon (Articles 56 (2), 61 (1), and 68 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) within 90 days from the date on which a disposition is known (when a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt).

BB (the Plaintiff’s wife) received the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax as of November 18, 201 among the instant disposition on November 23, 201, and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax as of April 25, 2013 among the instant disposition on April 25, 2013, respectively.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff filed a request for evaluation or a request for judgment seeking revocation within 90 days from the date of being served with respect to the remainder of the corporate tax and the principal tax of value-added tax excluding the additional charges.

Therefore, the part seeking the cancellation of the remaining part of the lawsuit of this case, except the above additional dues, is unlawful as it is brought without going through legitimate pre-trial procedure. The defendant's assertion pointing this out has merit

3. Conclusion

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