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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 539,574,840, and corporate tax of KRW 63,961,550, which reverts to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2016 for the business year of 2013 (e.g., the foregoing disposition is revoked).

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in wholesale business and trade business, purchased food such as fruit, and exported food to China.

B. From January 20, 2016 to June 10, 2016, the director of the regional tax office discovered that the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s report on the amount of income belonging to the business year 2013 to 714,421,04, and the amount of income belonging to the business year 2014 to 106,458,884, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. On July 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 539,574,840 of corporate tax for the business year 2013, and KRW 63,961,550 of corporate tax for the business year 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff served a notice of tax payment of the instant disposition on July 6, 2016, and filed an objection against the instant disposition on October 5, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days, which is the period for filing an objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it did not go through lawful pre-trial procedures.

B. Determination

Where a person is dissatisfied with a disposition imposing national taxes, he/she may file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing national taxes only through a request for a trial, etc. prescribed in Articles 56(2) and 55 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply). In such cases, a request for a trial, etc. shall be lawful by complying with the deadline for request. As such, in cases where the procedure of the preceding trial, such as a request for a trial, is unlawful due to the lapse of the deadline for request, the lawsuit seeking revocation of

According to Articles 61(1), 61(2), and 68 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for a trial against a disposition of imposing national taxes shall be filed within 90 days (90 days from the date a decision on an objection is notified in cases where an objection has been filed before a request for examination or adjudgment was made) from the date the relevant disposition is known (when a notice on a disposition has been received, the date of receipt of such notice). According to Articles 66(1), 66(6), and 61(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, an objection against a disposition of imposing national taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances in which evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Nos. 4 through 6, the purport of the entire pleadings is recognized, the Plaintiff received a tax payment notice of the instant disposition on July 6, 2016, and filed an objection against the instant disposition on October 5, 2016, which was 90 days after the period for filing an objection under the former Framework Act on National Taxes, was 90 days after the filing of the objection under the former Framework Act. Accordingly, the objection is unlawful, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the instant disposition is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it did not go through a legitimate pre-trial procedure.

① 피고는 ○○지방국세청장으로부터 통보받은 과세자료에 근거하여 이 사건 처분을 포함하여 아래 표 기재와 같은 법인세 및 부가가치세 부과처분을 하였는데, 아래 표 기재와 같이 2012 ~ 2014 사업연도 법인세 부과처분 및 2012년 2기, 2013년 1, 2기 부가가치세 부과처분은 2016. 7. 6. 원고 대표이사인 김■■을 수령인으로 하여 등기우편으로 송달되었고, 2014년 1, 2기 부가가치세 부과처분은 2016. 7. 8. 김■■의 동료 직원 김○○을 수령인으로 하여 등기우편으로 송달되었다.

② On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the imposition of each corporate tax and value-added tax. On November 25, 2016, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office rendered a decision to dismiss the objection. The reason for the decision is that a tax payment notice of each of the above dispositions was served on July 8, 2016, and that a tax payment notice of each of the above dispositions was served on the Plaintiff on July 6, 2016, unlike the date of actual delivery.

③ On February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the instant disposition and the instant disposition on imposition of value-added tax on January 2, 2013, 2014, 1, and 2012 (the instant disposition and the instant disposition on imposition of value-added tax on February 2012 were excluded from the subject of appeal). The Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal against each disposition on imposition of value-added tax on July 6, 2016 by deeming that the notice on imposition of value-added tax on January 1, 2013, 20, 2014, and 2016 was served on the Plaintiff on July 6, 2016.

3. Conclusion

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices to dismiss the instant lawsuit.