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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax of November 6, 2012 against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2012 is revoked.

○ On May 26, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired and owned an OO-dong 624-23, 624-24, 624-24, and 624-25, 3rd Dong-dong 103 (hereinafter “instant house”) on the 3rd unit of the same 3rd unit of land, and transferred the instant house to KimB on June 2, 2003.

○ On August 2003, the Plaintiff reported the tax base of capital gains to the tax authority along with a sales contract (Evidence A2) stating the purchase price as an OOO won, and reported that the transfer value of the instant housing is calculated with the transfer value as an OO won, the Plaintiff reported that there is no capital gains tax to be paid.

○ Meanwhile, KimB acquired the instant house from the Plaintiff, around February 2004, transferred the instant house to the head of ○○○ Tax Office, which accordingly reported the tax base of capital gains to the head of ○○○ Tax Office, and accordingly reported the acquisition value from the Plaintiff as an OO, along with a sales contract (Evidence A3) stating the sales price as an OOO.

○○○○○○○○ Head of the tax office examined the details of each sales contract and KimB’s vindication in relation to the Plaintiff’s transfer value reported on the instant housing and the acquisition value of KimB, and determined that the reported contents are false and false, and notified the Defendant of the assessment data of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff.

○ Following the notification of the above taxation data, the Defendant calculated the transfer value of the instant housing by using the Plaintiff’s transfer value as an OOO rather than an OOO, and issued the instant disposition on November 6, 2012 to the Plaintiff, which corrected and notified the OOO of the transfer income tax for the year 2003.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 2, 3, Eul 3 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The actual transaction value of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant house to KimB is the OO members listed in the sales contract (Evidence A2) submitted by the Plaintiff, and the sales contract (Evidence A3) submitted by KimB was forged, but the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

B. The instant disposition is unlawful since it was imposed after the lapse of five years after the Plaintiff transferred the instant house.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it does not go through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a person who has received a tax disposition is dissatisfied with such a request for examination or adjudgment under the same Act, an administrative litigation may be instituted only after the request for examination or adjudgment is filed. In such cases, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful, such as the obligation to comply with the request period. Where a request for examination or adjudgment is illegal due to the lapse of the time period, administrative litigation shall also be deemed inappropriate because it fails to meet the requirements for the transfer. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for adjudgment shall be filed within 90

In the instant case, if the Plaintiff received the notice of the instant disposition on November 13, 2012, and it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 28, 2013, which was 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the instant disposition. Thus, the instant appeal is unlawful as it was filed in excess of the period for request, and thus, it is unlawful as it was filed without going through lawful procedures.

4. assumptive judgment on the merits

The plaintiff's assertion that "the disposition of this case" was unlawful since it was imposed five years after the date on which the plaintiff transferred the house of this case (the lawsuit of this case that the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the disposition of this case without legitimate pre-trial procedure is unlawful as seen above, but the plaintiff's above claim is a tax disposition after five years have elapsed since the exclusion period of imposition expires, and it is judged as follows on the ground that the defect is serious and obvious and null and void automatically).

Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that if a taxpayer evades a national tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means, it shall be for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable (No. 1); if a taxpayer fails to file a written tax base return within the statutory due date of return, for seven years from the date on which the national tax is assessable (No. 2); and if a taxpayer does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2, for five years from the date on which the national tax is assessable (no. 3). "Fraud and other unlawful acts" referred to in subparagraph 1 of the above provision refers to a deceptive scheme or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes.

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to this case’s health class, the above-mentioned evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and 7 together with the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff submitted a sales contract as of May 9, 2003, which entered the sales price into the name of OOOO as of May 9, 2003, instead of simply underreporting the transfer price at the time of filing a transfer income tax base. As such, the Plaintiff’s act of submitting a false sales contract to the Defendant constitutes a fraud or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to collect it with the intent to evade the transfer income tax and makes it difficult to collect it.

Therefore, since the exclusion period of transfer income tax due to the transfer of the Plaintiff’s house of this case shall be 10 years, the disposition of this case imposing transfer income tax within the exclusion period of imposition is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

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