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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of collecting capital gains tax to the Plaintiff on July 2016 is revoked 20,112 and the collection disposition of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff in 201 X.

A. From December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff and LAA engaged in shipbuilding and repair business jointly with BCC Ddong X 21-X “B engineering”.

B. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and LAA owned 21-X Ddong X, a place of business, 21-X factory site and 1/2 shares of the above ground factory site. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and LA, a place of business, transferred it to another person, and accordingly, reported capital gains tax 42,495, and paid capital gains tax, but did not pay capital gains tax.

C. On February 12, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax of 48,278 and the capital gains tax of 2012 (including additional tax, and February 13, 2013).

D. The Plaintiff and LAA filed an application for the cancellation of the remainder of the auction procedure, excluding the distribution procedure, during the auction procedure, with the owner of the vessel who applied for voluntary auction as a creditor of the cost of repair of the vessel, and the pertinent owner of the vessel deposited a guarantee deposit (FF support of the EE District Court in 2012) and filed an application for the cancellation of the auction procedure excluding the distribution procedure during the auction procedure.

E. On February 18, 2013, the Defendant seized an amount equivalent to KRW 51,371,820, out of the Plaintiff’s right to claim for payment of the deposit money. The Defendant received dividends from the distribution procedure (BB District Court 2015Mo461) to KRW 51,371, but did not receive dividends from the increased additional charges incurred after seizure.

F. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a 'Guidance on Payment of Tax in Arrears' as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidance on Payment in Arrears”).

Since the thickness of the national taxes are delinquent as follows, the national taxes shall be paid by the next deadline for the payment and shall be paid in the night as soon as possible to guide the main office. It is known that if the national taxes are not paid, they may be disadvantaged due to the disposition on default, such as seizure.

○ Payment Time Limit: 201X. 7. XX. (The time for asking to the person in charge when such payment is made after the expiration of the time limit)

○ Payment Method: (1) Electronic payment in the Home Call Service by the National Tax Service;

(2) Payment made to financial institutions near a statement of payment.

(3) Payment shall be made in the virtual account or by visiting the nearest tax office.

○National Tax in arrears: One case in arrears of BBB Tax, 20,112

G. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the guidance of the arrears of this case, but the Plaintiff’s request was dismissed on March 16, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Defendant’s main defense

The guidance on the tax in arrears of this case is merely a mere notification informing the Plaintiff that there is a national tax in arrears, not a disposition that is subject to appeal.

2) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The instant guidance on arrears constitutes a disposition demanding the Plaintiff to pay increased additional dues in arrears.

B) The Defendant did not receive dividends from the wind that does not include the increased surcharge 20,112 in the claim distribution procedure, and this constitutes a waiver of the Defendant’s tax liability exemption or tax claim against the Plaintiff, and thus, the guidance on the amount in arrears, premised on the existence of the non-existent tax liability, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

If a national tax is not paid by the due date, a notice of increased additional charges or increased additional charges provided for in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act naturally occurs pursuant to the provisions of a law without a final procedure by the competent tax office. Thus, the notice of increased additional charges cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005). The guidance of delinquent taxes in this case is merely merely a notice of the tax office’s notification of the increased additional charges or increased additional charges of national taxes in arrears for the convenience of taxpayers, and cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation, on the grounds that the tax office’s notification of increased additional charges or increased additional charges is not merely a notice of demand provided for in Article 23

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the guidance on arrears tax of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.