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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2009, which was January 2, 2014, the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of April 2, 2009, which was April 2, 2009, and the imposition of KRW 000 of the earned income tax for the year 2009, which was May 9, 2014, shall be revoked, respectively.

A. On July 5, 2010, Nonparty AA is a factory building located at the port of Pakistan 809-24 (hereinafter referred to as “ Nonparty AA”)

'이 사건 건물'이라 한다)을 양도하고, ㅇㅇ세무서장에게 양도소득과세표준 예정신고를하면서 이 사건 건물의 전기공사에 소요되었다는 0000원(이하 '쟁점 금액'이라한다)을 필요경비로 공제하였는데, 당시 AAA이 공사대금 지급 증빙자료로 제출한 동액 상당의 약속어음에는 수령인이 원고로 기재되어 있다.

B. The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff omitted sales amount, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and KRW 0000 of the value-added tax for the first period of April 2, 2009 on April 2, 2014, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing corporate tax,” and “instant disposition imposing value-added tax”).

C. In addition, the defendant disposes of the issue amount as bonus to BB, the representative director of the plaintiff company.

After that, on May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a collection disposition of KRW 000,000 earned income tax to the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter “instant tax collection disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was not obligated to withhold earned income tax even after receiving the notice of change in the amount of income due to the above disposal of income (hereinafter “the instant tax collection disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 4 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service against the instant imposition disposition of value-added tax and the collection disposition of wage and salary income tax, and filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of dismissal of the said petition. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax and the collection disposition of wage and salary income

In addition, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case immediately without going through the pre-trial procedure, such as a request for a trial, with respect to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of this case.

Part seeking revocation is also unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether the period for filing a lawsuit is observed

The main sentence of Article 56 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under this Act.

A request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date a decision on such request is notified.

"......"

However, in the instant case, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for a review on June 24, 2014 against the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and the disposition of collection of wage and salary income tax. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on September 24, 2014, and the above dismissal ruling was served on the Plaintiff on September 19, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 19, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 19, 2014. The part seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and the disposition of collection of wage and salary income tax among the instant lawsuit failed to comply with the filing period

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is justified.

2) Whether the procedure was passed through the previous trial procedure

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative litigation against an illegal disposition shall be filed without a request for examination or a request for adjudication and a decision thereon under this Act."

However, in the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 3-3, No. 1-3, and No. 3-3, the Defendant imposed the corporate tax of this case on January 2, 2014.

In fact, on January 10, 2014, the notice of tax payment of the above corporate tax was served on the Plaintiff on the date of the closing of argument in the instant case. It is recognized that the Plaintiff did not request for an examination or a request for a judgment regarding the disposition of tax imposition of the instant corporate tax until the date of closing of argument in the instant case. The part seeking revocation of the disposition of tax imposition of the instant lawsuit

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is well-grounded.

3. Conclusion

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