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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax on March 1, 2015 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2015 is revoked.

A. On September 4, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred to ○○○○○ on March 3, 2011, the land of this case, which was owned by HuA, to ○○○○○. On April 12, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax by designating the acquisition value of the land of this case as ○○○○ (including the purchase value of land and the receipts and registration tax).

B. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant denied the acquisition value of the instant land as the successful bid price, and notified the ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of the transfer income tax reverted to the portion of the transfer income tax reverted to March 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 4, 2015, but was dismissed on March 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 15 to 20, and Gap evidence 21

(including serial number) each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed on July 5, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days from the date of notification of the decision on the petition for review.

B. Determination

1) According to Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, any administrative litigation following an illegal disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be instituted within 90 days after the decision on a request for examination or adjudgment is notified (Paragraph 3). It is a peremptory term (Paragraph 5). According to Article 59 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a claimant may appoint an attorney-at-law, certified tax accountant or certified public accountant registered under the Certified Tax Accountant Act as his/her agent (Paragraph 1). (Paragraph 4). In addition, pursuant to Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, documents may be served by registered mail under the Framework Act on National Taxes (Paragraph 2). If a person to receive documents is not present at the place where documents are to be served, documents may be served to such employee, other employee, or person living together (Paragraph 4).

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 9 (including serial numbers), and witnessCC’s witness testimony, the decision of this case can be acknowledged that the certified public accountantCC’s employee received the instant lawsuit on March 28, 2016, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 5, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days from the date of filing the lawsuit. Thus, the instant lawsuit is inappropriate due to the failure to observe the period of filing the lawsuit, and the Defendant’s main defense against the instant safety is justified (the instant case’s witness DD received mainly by two female employees on behalf of the certified public accountantCC, but the delivery process of the written decision of this case and the recipient cannot be accurately memory, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently from the witness evidence to acknowledge it.

① On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as his/her agent, and on March 11, 2016, the petition for review was dismissed.

② On March 25, 2016, the above review and decision was sent (registration number ○○) to the Certified Public Accountants CCC (representative A) on March 25, 2016 and completed delivery to 14:17 on March 28, 2016. In the recipient’s column of a postal delivery certificate (certificate No. 6), “CC” is written as “CC”, “CCC” in the recipient’s column, and “company fare” in the relation column with the recipient.

③ The witnessCC testified to the effect that there are cases where employees take the personal name when they receive postal items, and the name of the CCC was used.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.