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

Cheong-gu Office

It is confirmed that the part exceeding the OO's won among the penalty imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on April 9, 2012 is null and void.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a specialized dental clinic in the name of “BCC dental clinic (the present 'CC dental clinic'; hereinafter referred to as the “the dental clinic of this case”) from OOO-dong 32-3.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the instant dental clinic from September 29, 201 to March 26, 2012, and notified the Defendant of the result.

C. On April 9, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff underreported the income tax from 2007 to 2010 upon the above notice, and at the same time given that the Plaintiff’s underreporting constitutes “Fraud and other unlawful acts” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and notified the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to “amount equivalent to a fine (amount equivalent to a fine)” under Article 15(1)1 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the same day (hereinafter “instant notice disposition”).

D. On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW OO equivalent to the fine in accordance with the instant notification disposition (hereinafter “the instant fine”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on July 4, 2012. On May 8, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a re-audit decision to the effect that “the amount of income shall be calculated again by taking into account the expenses incurred in the course of operating the dental clinic of this case based on the Plaintiff’s medical fees, X-ray, work sets, etc.” The Defendant issued a decision of correction that deducts the calculated amount of business income to be borne by the Plaintiff from the amount of OO won according to the said re-audit decision (hereinafter “instant decision of correction”).

F. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the same part as the written claim in the instant disposition.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The amount equivalent to the fine under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be based on the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the amount of tax evaded or the amount of tax refunded or deducted. However, since the calculated tax amount, which serves as the basis for the amount equivalent to the fine of this case, has been reduced according to the correction of this case, the portion exceeding the amount equivalent to the fine of this case, which has been reduced in proportion thereto, (OO) constitutes the amount equivalent to

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

Before determining the plaintiff's assertion, it is examined whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate.

Article 55(3)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that notification under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not be deemed a disposition under Article 55(1) of the same Act, and shall not be subject to an objection, a request for examination, or a request for adjudgment. Thus, notification under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be made clear that the disposition is not subject to administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu89, Jun. 12, 1979). Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking nullification of some of the disposition of this case is not subject to the disposition of this case, and thus, it is unlawful without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

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