Doese of the filing period

Since it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of imposition, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition of transfer income tax of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful with the lapse of the filing period.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court 2015Guhap340 ( October 07, 2015)

Park ○

△△ Head of Tax Office 1

August 26, 2015

October 7, 2015

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The head of △△ Tax Office shall transfer income tax on November 1, 2013 reverted to the Plaintiff in 2008.

The imposition of KRW 203,116,760 shall be revoked, and the imposition of KRW 20,860,080 against the Plaintiff on March 11, 2014 by Defendant △△△△△△.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 29, 2008, the head of the Defendant △△△ Tax Office decided and notified the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff, 2008, on May 29, 200, 805 square meters of ○○-ri Forest, 805 square meters of ○○-ri Forest, 805 square meters of ○○-ri Forest, 243 square meters of ○-ri Forest, 494 square meters of buildings on the ground thereof, and 659 square meters of ○-ri Forest, 30 square meters of ○-ri Forest, which were not registered (including additional taxes).

B. Defendant △△ Head of the tax office’s notification of the above taxation data;

On March 11, 2014, the local income tax of KRW 20,860,080 (including additional tax) was determined and notified to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "disposition for imposition of local income tax of this case").

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax, filed an objection on November 18, 2013, but was subject to a decision of dismissal, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 17, 2014, but was subject to a decision of dismissal by the Tax Tribunal on June 3, 2014.

Facts that there is no dispute, Eul's statements, Eul's certificates of Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's certificates of No. 1 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defendants' main defense

A. Determination on the part of seeking revocation of imposition of capital gains tax among the instant lawsuit

The head of △△ Tax Office seeks revocation of the imposition of capital gains tax among the instant lawsuits.

It argues that the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is excessive because it has been filed.

The action for cancellation of the disposition of national tax shall be subject to a decision on the request for examination or adjudgment.

In full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 56(3)), and Article 56(4) of the same Act, the Tax Tribunal’s decision regarding the imposition of capital gains tax of this case may be recognized as having reached the Plaintiff on or around June 9, 2014. Since it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed only on or around February 13, 2015 after the lapse of 90 days from the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, even with the filing

B. Determination on the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax among the instant lawsuit

The defendant △△ Mayor asserts that the part seeking the revocation of the imposition of local income tax among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it is filed with the lapse of the filing period prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act.

(1) The action for cancellation against an administrative disposition shall be brought within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known.

In full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in Articles 20(1) and 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 20(1) and 20(1)1-4, the Defendant may send a written notice of imposition of local income tax of this case to the Plaintiff on March 11, 2014, and recognize that the Plaintiff received it on March 13, 2014. The instant lawsuit was filed only on February 13, 2015 after the lapse of 90 days from the said lawsuit. Accordingly, the part seeking revocation of the imposition of local income tax of this case among the instant lawsuit is unlawful, even if it exceeds the filing period.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.