A decision rejecting refund is not an administrative disposition, but is not subject to administrative litigation.

The decision of the national tax refund or the rejection decision of the request for the refund shall not be a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the right to claim the refund of the taxpayer.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s revocation of a provisional disposition on August 10, 2009, which rejected refund of value-added tax on behalf of the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased one unit of 129,000,000 construction machinery (DX210W), which is a construction machinery, from YL Co., Ltd.

B. On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of construction machinery rental business operator at ○○○○-dong 521-1, 2009.

C. On May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a return on early refund of value-added tax with regard to the purchase of the excavation period as stipulated in paragraph (1) to the Defendant. However, on June 3, 2009, the Defendant imposed penalty tax of KRW 1,290,000 on the Plaintiff by deeming that the said return was based on the tax invoice that was delivered 20 days prior to the date of application for the registration of business, and was not subject to the input tax deduction, along with a notice that the value-added tax would not be refunded, but revoked the imposition of the said penalty tax on August 4,

2. Whether the litigation of this case is legal; and

In the event that the tax authority rendered a decision of correction that reduces the amount of tax payable or increases the amount of tax payable pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act on the grounds that a taxpayer had an omission or error in the initial tax base return and the amount of tax payable or the amount of tax refundable, etc., the confirmation of tax liability arising from the initial return cannot no longer be maintained. Thus, if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the decision of correction of the tax authority and thus is paid the amount of tax initially reported, an appeal suit can be filed to revoke the decision of correction. However, as in the case of this case, the defendant merely refused the refund of the amount of tax payable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant reduced the amount of tax payable or notified the payment of the value-added tax by the decision of correction, and the head of a tax office provides that the amount of final tax payable for the relevant taxable period shall be refunded to the relevant business operator within a specified period after the final return period expires, but each of the above provisions is merely an internal administrative procedure for refund of the national tax refund for which the tax refund claim becomes final and does not directly determined.

Therefore, the defendant's notification of refusal to refund cannot be considered as a disposition subject to administrative litigation (the plaintiff is allowed to claim the refund under the Value-Added Tax Act and seek the return in civil procedure).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.