심사청구 또는 심판청구와 그에 대한 결정(이하 ‘전심절차’라 한다)을 거치지 아니하고 제기된 소송은 부적법함.[국승]
Any lawsuit that is instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon (hereinafter referred to as the "request for examination") shall be illegal.
Any lawsuit that is instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon (hereinafter referred to as the "request for examination") shall be illegal.
Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2018-Gu Partnership-159 The person liable for secondary tax payment, the designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment, the revocation of the corporate tax
AA
@@세무서장
on 01. 06 01
on December 22, 2016
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The disposition that the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer shall be revoked. The Defendant revoked the disposition that the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer. The imposition of the tax amount of KRW 28,820,590, the value-added tax of KRW 2,981,610, the value-added tax of KRW 14,513,540, the value-added tax of KRW 14,513,540, the value-added tax of January 2014, the corporate tax of KRW 37,722,650, the corporate tax of KRW 33,322,180, the corporate tax of KRW 10,584,30 for the year 2013, and the corporate tax of KRW 10,584,30 for the year 2014 (b) below).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. AA Construction Industry Co., Ltd. did not pay each corporate tax for the year 2, 2012, 1, 2013, 2013, 1, 2014, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
B. Around July and August 2014, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as a secondary taxpayer; (b) imposed the Plaintiff KRW 28,820,590 of the value-added tax for 2 years 2012; (c) KRW 2,981,610 of the value-added tax for 1 year 2013; (d) KRW 106,212,060 of the value-added tax for 1 year 2014; (e) KRW 37,729,940 of the corporate tax for 2012; and (e) KRW 33,322,180 of the corporate tax for 2013; and (e) KRW 17,495,170 of the corporate tax for 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. Summary of the defendant's assertion
The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it does not go through the previous trial procedure.
B. Determination
Administrative litigation on national taxes may be filed through a request for examination by the National Tax Service, a request for adjudication by the Tax Tribunal, or a request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit following the procedure for the preceding trial. According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff filed a request for grievance to the Defendant on March 2, 2016, but this cannot be deemed a prior trial procedure prescribed in the Framework Act on National Taxes. The instant lawsuit is unlawful (in addition, the designated portion of the secondary taxpayer seeking revocation cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6632, Sept. 15, 195).
3. Conclusion
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, since all of the lawsuits in this case are unlawful.