2. On November 6, 1979, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as a physical taxpayer for the personal business tax for withholding tax in 1977; (b) 1,956,703 won; (c) 18,467,928 won from the occasional amount of global income tax in 1978; and (d) 3,926,917 won from the defense (amended by September 5, 1980) and imposed tax on the Plaintiff.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the judgment as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Disposition above.

(1) On June 8, 197, KRW 1,95,703 (20 January 25, 197), KRW 18,467,928 and KRW 3,926,917 (2.9 February 9, 197) were imposed on Nonparty 1, 67, 197, 197, 197, 36, 197, 197, 197, 36, 197, 197, 36, 197, 197, 197, 36, 197, 197, 97, 197, 197, 197, 196, 36, 197, 197, 196, 196, 196, 207, 36, 197, 196, 196, 207, 36, 16, 197, 16, 3,2, 3.

2. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s primary claimant’s claim for revocation of the instant taxation disposition.

The plaintiff's representative, on June 24, 1976, stated in the separate sheet, that the real estate was purchased from the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's predecessor Kim Jong-ju, the original taxpayer on June 24, 1976, but the defendant took place on June 20, 197 with respect to provisional registration which was passed through the same day, and designated the plaintiff as the heir of the non-party 1, who was the heir of the non-party 2, as the material taxpayer and imposed the tax in this case. Even if the above real estate was the property transferred to the non-party 1, who is the original taxpayer of the national tax, it is obvious that the transfer was established one year before November 19, 1979, and therefore, the secured debt of the transfer to the plaintiff shall take precedence over the national tax, and therefore, the plaintiff's request for review against the plaintiff shall be revoked on the grounds that the plaintiff's request for review was made on the legitimate basis of subparagraph 1, subparagraph 3, 2, 1, and 5, respectively.

(2) In other words, the plaintiff sent a written request for correction, setting a period of 31 days until August 3 of the same year, and the plaintiff is received on July 7 of the same year; and

(3) Lastly, it can be recognized that the plaintiff sent a written request for correction with a period of 29 days until September 5 of the same year and the plaintiff received it on August 9 of the same year. There is no counter-proof, and the plaintiff's date of the lawsuit in this case is clearly recorded on October 21 of the same year.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 56, 63, 65 and 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal who received the request shall make a decision on it within 90 days from the date of receiving such request, but if he deems that the contents or procedures of the request for adjudgment are not appropriate to the same Act or tax-related Acts but can be corrected, he may request correction within a reasonable period. Such correction period shall not be included in the period of adjudication decision, but if the decision is not notified within the prescribed period of adjudication, the request for adjudgment shall be deemed dismissed. Thus, if the claimant is not notified of the decision on the request within the prescribed period of adjudication, he shall institute an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date the prescribed period of adjudication expires, and the above request for correction shall be served on the claimant before the expiration of the prescribed period of adjudication decision, i.e., the above request for correction shall not be later than 10 days prior to the expiration of the prescribed period of adjudication.

The plaintiff's attorney did not receive the second request for correction of the National Tax Tribunal from the same inquiry office on August 8, 1980, which is the expiration date of the time limit for the second request for correction of the National Tax Tribunal, and the third request for correction was made by telephone from the same inquiry office on September 7, 198, which is the plaintiff's agent, until September 29 of the same year, so the time limit for the second request for correction was extended until 7th of the same month (90 + 25 days + 29 days). The plaintiff received some part of the decision for the request for correction of the same time period from the head of the same inquiry office on the same 60 days before the expiration date of the time limit for the second request for correction of the National Tax Tribunal, and the plaintiff's request for correction correction of the remaining time limit for the second request for correction of the National Tax Tribunal's testimony or statement of request for correction of the same purpose as the witness's testimony or statement of request for correction of the same time.

3. Next, we examine the plaintiff's preliminary claimant's claim to nullify the invalidity of the taxation disposition of this case.

The plaintiff's legal representative died on February 24, 197, the first taxpayer of this case, and the defendant already imposed the tax amount in the name of the non-party as it died, and later imposed the tax amount again on the non-party's heir, without going through a procedure such as imposing the tax again on the non-party's heir, the plaintiff, the heir of the non-party Kim Jong-do, designated the plaintiff as a material taxpayer and imposed the tax amount on the non-party's national tax in arrears. If there is a fact, there is no room for the plaintiff's physical tax liability. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the tax disposition of this case from this case is invalid because it is obvious that there is a significant and obvious defect, and therefore, it is argued that the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation is made invalid, taking into account all the arguments mentioned in the evidence No. 6, the non-party's original taxpayer of this case, the plaintiff's original taxpayer of this case, and the defendant died on February 24, 1977.

(1) At any time on June 8, 197, gold 1,956,703 won from time to time in 1977;

(2) 18,467,928 global income tax on January 25, 1978 and defense tax amounting to 3,926,917 won on January 25, 1978;

(3) On July 4, 1978, imposed and collected each tax of KRW 361,873 and KRW 3,003,151 on an occasional installment of KRW 1978,00,00 and KRW 3,003,151 on an occasional installment of KRW 1978. The defendant subsequently designated the plaintiff, the heir of Nonparty Kim Jong-ju (Death of April 2, 1979) as a material taxpayer on November 6, 1979 without going through the process of again imposing each tax on his heir of Nonparty 1, the heir of Nonparty 1, the heir of the above tax amount, and imposed each tax amount on September 5, 1980, which led to the remaining taxation disposition of this case. Accordingly, if there is no reflective evidence, it cannot be deemed that there was an initial taxation disposition on the deceased non-party unconstitutional. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is no significant and obvious reason for the plaintiff's tax obligor's failure to pay taxes.

4. If so, the plaintiff's main claimant's lawsuit concerning the revocation of the tax disposition in this case is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's conjunctive claimant's claim for nullification of the tax disposition in this case is justified as there is a legitimate interest in confirmation, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the total cost of lawsuit.

February 23, 1984

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission (Real Estate List)]