Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap1773 ( October 17, 2014)

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes excludes the application of Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

The provisions of Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning the procedure for a prior trial are excluded from the application of Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and a lawsuit without a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning other Acts

2014Nu231 Revocation of disposition of business suspension

AA Alcoholic Beverages Sales Co.

BB Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Guhap1773 Decided January 17, 2014

April 30, 2014

May 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of the comprehensive alcoholic beverage sales license against the plaintiff on July 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for our court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the first instance judgment, which is the same as that for the following cases, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same.

○ The Plaintiff asserts that Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is null and void in violation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is only a special provision under Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and is not contrary thereto (the two are both the legal provisions that are equal to the national law and order, and are not the latter are superior to the former, and the latter is not the superior to the former). The circumstances of the Plaintiff’s spread alone do not

○ In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that a revocation suit may be instituted without filing an administrative appeal since the investigator of the Central Regional Tax Office notified that the instant disposition was not necessary to undergo an administrative appeal, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.