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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 23, 2015, the defendant revoked the decision of correction of taxation made against the plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff is a business operator who runs a hotel accommodation business with the trade name of "AA".

B. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered BBB (hereinafter “BBB”) to build a new hotel “AA”, and received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 513,636,365 in total from BB during the second taxable period in 2014.

C. The Plaintiff applied for early refund of value-added tax amounting to KRW 51,363,635 on the ground of the purchase tax invoice received as above.

D. As a result of conducting on-site verification on the Plaintiff’s workplace from March 2, 2015 to March 9, 2015, the Defendant on July 3, 2014, out of the purchase tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff from BBBB.

The purchase tax invoice of KRW 218,181,819 shall be deemed an advance tax invoice that fails to meet the requirements for input tax deduction, and thus, the relevant input tax amount and the total amount of penalty tax amount of KRW 26,39,99 shall be excluded from the refundable tax amount. Accordingly, on March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff that on March 23, 2015, only the remainder of KRW 24,963,63,636, excluding the above KRW 26,39,99, out of the value-added tax amount of KRW 51,363,635, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 12, 2015 without filing a request for examination or adjudgment. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition to the Defendant, and the said objection was dismissed on June 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7-1, 7-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without going through the pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed.

B. Determination

Articles 56(2) and 55(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that any administrative litigation to revoke an illegal or unreasonable disposition pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes may not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon. Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the same Act provide that any request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is known. Thus, in order to file an administrative litigation to seek revocation of taxation, a request for examination or adjudgment must undergo lawful pre-trial procedure, and the lawsuit filed without going through such procedure is unlawful. According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case without a request for examination or adjudgment on the disposition in this case, and even after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff did not file a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes within 90 days from the date on which a notice of rejection is given. Thus, the lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

3. Conclusion

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