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

A. The Defendant: (a) determined on April 22, 201, that the Plaintiff owned 100% of the company’s shares in the instant case; (b) it was difficult for BB BB CK (hereinafter “instant company”) to pay the value-added tax, labor income tax, and the assets of the instant company; and (c) determined that the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder; and (d) on April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer, notified the Plaintiff of the payment of value-added tax and labor income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) the Plaintiff received the said notice of payment around that time.

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the Defendant on July 13, 2012, while the Defendant, on August 1, 2012, filed an objection within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition was received, the date of receipt) when he became aware of the relevant disposition, and the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that it was unlawful since the Plaintiff filed an objection on July 13, 2012, which was 90 days after the date when the notice of the instant disposition was received, and that the objection was unlawful.

C. On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request on the Tax Island, but on October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “the Plaintiff filed an objection on July 13, 2012, which was 90 days after the date on which the instant disposition was notified, and that the request for a trial was unlawful because it did not go through legitimate objection.”

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 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

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

According to Article 55(1) and Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where a person who has received a notice of tax payment is dissatisfied with a notice of tax payment under the same Act, an administrative litigation may be instituted only after undergoing a request for examination or adjudgment under the same Act. In such cases, a request for examination or adjudgment must be lawful, such as required to comply with the request period, and where a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to its lapse, administrative litigation also becomes unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). In addition, under Article 61(1) and (2) and Article 66(6) and Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the request for examination or adjudgment may be filed before the date of receipt of the initial request for examination or adjudgment. In such cases, the request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the request, and where the request for examination or adjudgment is filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the request for examination or adjudgment.

3. Conclusion

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