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

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 4:

A. With respect to value-added tax for the first term portion in January 2012 (from January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012; hereinafter “instant taxable period”), the Plaintiff filed a final value-added tax return on April 12, 2012, including “00 won of sales tax, input tax amount of KRW 000, and KRW 000 of the tax amount,” but subsequently completed the final value-added tax return as “00 of sales tax amount, KRW 000 of the input tax amount, and KRW 000 of the tax amount.”

B. On the grounds that the Defendant omitted the tax base of the leased income during the instant taxable period, and illegally deducted the input tax amount of KRW 000 not directly related to the business, on September 13, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the instant taxable period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection to the Defendant under Articles 55(3) and 66(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on October 18 of the same year after deliberation by the National Tax Examination Committee.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Articles 5(1) and (3), 56(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person whose rights or interests are infringed due to an illegal or unreasonable disposition, or a failure to receive a necessary disposition, as a disposition under tax-related Acts, may file a request for cancellation or modification of such disposition, and a person may file an objection with the director of the competent regional tax office prior to a request for examination or adjudgment on such disposition. However, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation on such unlawful disposition may not be filed with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service through the head of the competent regional tax office within 90 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of such disposition) under Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (referring to a request for examination under Article

In this case, there is no evidence to the effect that only the Plaintiff filed an objection under Articles 55(3) and 66(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and only passed a request for examination or a request for trial under the said Act. Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful, without going through a request for examination or a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.