Suwon District Court-2013 Guhap-16686 ( November 05, 2014)

2013 Middle 3310 (No. 27, 2013)

It constitutes an unlawful lawsuit without going through the pre-trial procedure prior to a lawsuit as to a decision of objection

Even if the tax authority did not notify the period of filing an objection while imposing a tax disposition, the period of filing an objection shall be within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Nu71032 Revocation of a decision of dismissal

OO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap16686 Decided November 5, 2014

April 24, 2015

May 8, 2015

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 decision to dismiss an objection against the plaintiff on April 19, 2013 shall be revoked.

The cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

① On No. 2, No. 17 (A) the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is “A. The rejection of the instant case is subject to appeal”.

(2) The interval between pages 3, 16 through 4, 11 shall be as follows:

Whether he/she has completed the procedure of a previous trial.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the decision of rejection of this case is unlawful because it did not go through a request for examination or a request for adjudication under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Article 56(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under Article 55 of the same Act may not be filed without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudication and a decision thereon under the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on July 17, 2013 after receiving the notice of the decision of rejection of the instant case, and stated in the written request that “No objection shall be filed within 90 days after receiving the transfer tax by registration.” The grounds for objection as stated in the written request for a written request for a trial are disputing the propriety of the decision of rejection of the instant case, and the said written request for adjudication can be deemed a request for a trial against the decision of rejection of the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit

3. Whether the rejection of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The notice of tax payment regarding the instant disposition did not state that an objection may be filed within 90 days. Therefore, the rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s objection was filed after the expiration of the time limit for filing the objection was unlawful.

B. Determination

According to Articles 66(6) and 61(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, an objection shall be filed within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition is known (when a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt).

Even if a tax authority did not notify the period of filing an objection while imposing a tax disposition, the period of filing an objection shall be within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which the tax authority becomes aware of the relevant disposition, and if an administrative agency fails to notify the period of filing an administrative appeal under Article 27(6) and (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, a request for an administrative appeal may be made within 180 days, but Article 56(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes does not apply to a tax disposition. Thus, the period of filing an objection shall not be deemed within 180 days from the date of such disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du536, Nov. 1

In the instant case, even though the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that it should file an objection within 90 days while imposing the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on March 26, 2013, 90 days after receiving a notice of payment related to the instant disposition on November 12, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the Plaintiff’s objection was filed after the expiration of the period for filing the objection and was unlawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by rejecting the lawsuit of this case, but the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be revoked by the judgment of the court of first instance disadvantageous to the plaintiff who is the appellant under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in this case which only appealed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.