2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On November 20, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the company at the place of the residence (hereinafter referred to as the “place of the residence) and the company at the place of the residence (hereinafter referred to as the “place of the residence”) on the construction of the ○○○○ Dong, 2892, and the construction of the said apartment. On January 24, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the company at the place of the residence (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) under which nine households (101, 102, 201, 202, 302, 301, 402, 402, 502, 602, hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”).

B. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 73,736,792 as global income tax on the part on which the Plaintiff newly built and sold the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant disposition 1”) and KRW 24,757,034 on November 1, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition 2”).

C. The Plaintiff received a tax payment notice on the instant disposition 1 through the LA, the spouse, on February 18, 2008, and received a tax payment notice on the instant disposition 2 on November 10, 2008.

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case, filed the instant lawsuit on July 9, 2009, and thereafter filed a request for adjudication with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 21, 2009 (hereinafter “instant request for adjudication”). However, the instant request for adjudication was dismissed on the ground that at least 301 days have elapsed from the date the Plaintiff received the notice of tax payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main safety defense

A. Main Safety Defenses

With respect to the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff received capital gains from the sale of the apartment house of this case is illegal on the basis of the income of others, the Defendant asserts that it is unlawful since the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit or without going through legitimate procedures for a prior trial.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In a case where a request for administrative appeal, which is a prior trial procedure of an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, is unlawful due to the lapse of the time limit, administrative litigation is not dismissed as it fails to satisfy the requirements of a prior trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). According to the above facts of recognition, the appeal of this case is unlawful as being filed 90 days after the date on which the Plaintiff received a notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as not going through a lawful prior trial procedure.

(2) On this issue, the Plaintiff received a tax notice on the instant disposition 1, received a tax notice from the Defendant’s staff member in charge, received the tax, and heard the answer from the Defendant’s staff member in charge of the instant disposition, and received the tax in return, or received the tax from the place of the place of the residence and received the tax. On April 28, 2008, upon the Defendant’s order, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of global income tax, etc. imposed on the instant apartment after the date of the instant agreement from the date of the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant previous lawsuit”). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the period of filing the instant petition, and even if it is not a house ②, the Plaintiff erred in the civil litigation without intention or gross negligence, and thus, the Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit is deemed to have complied with the period of filing the lawsuit based on April 28, 2008, the date of the instant previous lawsuit.

The written evidence No. 8 is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant-in-charged employee paid taxes to the plaintiff once he pays taxes to the plaintiff, is returned from the place of the shop in which the place of the shop in question, or is paid taxes by receiving taxes from the place of the shop in question, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff’s recommendation by the staff in charge of defendant’s domestic affairs is recognized to have filed the previous lawsuit of this case, a request for adjudication is filed within 90 days after the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition, and is not filed after 180 days from the date of the disposition, and the period for filing a request for adjudication is a peremptory term. However, if the Plaintiff was unable to file a request for adjudication within 90 days from the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition due to natural disasters, war, war, or other force majeure, the cause may be filed within 14 days from the date when the cause is extinguished. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the request for adjudication of this case was dismissed after 90 days from the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition, and the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that there was justifiable cause for filing the request for adjudication of this case after 180 days from the date of the disposition is without merit, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was not made within 90 days from the date of the disposition due to force majeure.

In addition, in a case where the plaintiff, without intention or gross negligence, has a jurisdiction over the administrative litigation, if the court of the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the administrative litigation at the same time, it shall be examined and determined as an administrative litigation. If the lawsuit does not have jurisdiction over the administrative litigation, it shall not be decided as an unlawful litigation, unless it is so obvious that the litigation requirements as an administrative litigation are met, such as the prior trial procedure as an administrative litigation and the period for filing the lawsuit has already been over, or the disposition subject to an administrative litigation has not been in a state, and even if it is filed as an administrative litigation, it shall not be dismissed as an unlawful lawsuit, and it shall be transferred to the competent court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da28960, May 30, 197). However, even if the lawsuit was transferred against the plaintiff, the court of the lawsuit at issue does not have jurisdiction over the time of filing the lawsuit at the same time as the time of the lawsuit at issue, and it shall not be decided as the original period of the lawsuit at issue, and it shall not be viewed as the previous administrative litigation.

Therefore, there is no reason for the president of the plaintiff.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.