처분의 통지를 받은 날부터 90일이 되는 날을 경과하여 제기하였으므로 부적법함[각하]
Seocho 2012west 1503 (20 August 2012)
Since it was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of disposition, it is illegal.
The Plaintiff is deemed to have received a notice of disposition on December 8, 201, and thus, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to dismiss it since it is not in accordance with the procedure of the prior trial of the instant lawsuit, since it was not subject to the prior trial by filing a trial with the Tax Tribunal on December 9,
Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.
LAA
Head of the District Tax Office
March 26, 2013
April 12, 2013
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Each disposition on the attached list notified by the defendant against the plaintiff on December 14, 2011 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, from around October 2007 to around October 2010, engaged in real estate sub-lease business, and the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from October 17, 201 to October 29, 201, and on December 1, 2011, imposed global income tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff for each business year from 2007 to 2010, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
B. On December 8, 2011, the Plaintiff directly visited the investigation division of the calendar, and received a tax payment notice of the instant disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax payment notice”); “C. On March 9, 2012, 200, the Plaintiff issued a written request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “instant request for trial”); and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on August 20, 2012, on the ground that the instant request for trial was filed after the lapse of 90 days. The Plaintiff received the written request and filed the instant lawsuit on November 15, 2012 following the receipt of the said written request.
[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 12, Eul evidence 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
(a) Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and where an administrative litigation is filed against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts, the procedure for a request for examination or adjudgment prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes must be followed; and where a request for examination or adjudgment is filed within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the
The instant appeal is unlawful since the Plaintiff was filed after the lapse of 90 days from December 8, 201 upon receipt of the instant tax payment notice, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991).
B. As to this, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant tax payment notice on December 8, 201, are proved to have actually received the instant tax payment notice after December 14, 2011. Then, according to the entry of No. 2, and the delivery status of the Defendant’s computer, there are parts comprising “the output date of the instant tax payment notice is December 14, 201,” but the aforementioned facts and evidence Nos. 1 through 12 are considered as a whole as follows: (i) the fact-finding and the entire purport of each entry and evidence No. 2 No. 1 to 5 are indicated as follows; (ii) the fact-finding number of the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff on December 8, 201 and the receipt number No. 1 to 200 is not 1 to 2.12; and (iii) the Defendant visited the Plaintiff to have received the instant tax payment notice by 10.1 to 12.21.
3. Conclusion
If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition.