early 2012,0980 (204.30)

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it cannot be viewed as having gone through the necessary pre-determination procedure.

Since the disposition agency entered a tax notice into the e-mail address designated by the taxpayer, the service became effective at this time, and since the taxpayer filed an appeal after 90 days from the calendar, the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to have been duly transferred.

2012Guhap25637 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

November 2, 2012

November 23, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the business year of 2007 against the Plaintiff on October 5, 2011 (the clerical error in October 15, 201) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on December 11, 2001 and engaged in a construction business, etc.

나. 원고는 2005. 9. 22. 국세청 홈텍스서비스 홈페이지(www.hometax.go.kr.)에 공인 인증서를 통하여 접속하여 국세기본법(2012. 6. 1. 법률 제11461호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제10조 제8항, 동 시행령(2012. 6. 26. 대통령령 제23878호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조의2 제1항, 국세기본법 시행규칙(2012. 2. 28. 기획재정부령 제262호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조의2, 홈텍스서비스 이용에 관한 규정 제5조에 따라 전자송달 신청을 하고, 전자우편주소를 QQQ로 지정하였다.

C. Around May 2010, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff. “The Plaintiff voluntarily deducted KRW 000 out of KRW 000 of the deficits not reported by the Plaintiff in the business year 2007 as the deficit brought forward at the time of the return of corporate tax for the business year 2004, and notified the Defendant of the denial of it and the rectification of corporate

D. On October 5, 2010, the Defendant: (a) entered a tax payment notice that imposes and notifies corporate tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the business year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) into the e-mail address and served electronically to the Plaintiff.

E. On February 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on April 30, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file an appeal within the period of 90 days.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

If the omitted cost of KRW 000 is deducted, the deficit occurs in the business year 2005, and the corporate tax is zero won if the loss carried forward is deducted from the corporate tax in the business year 2007, the disposition in this case is unlawful.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the period for filing a petition for a trial has expired.

B. Determination

(1) Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “Any administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be filed without a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon.” Thus, any administrative litigation that seeks the revocation of a disposition of national tax shall not be filed without the request for examination or adjudgment, unlike the discretionary transfer principle of administrative adjudication that applies to the general administrative litigation, must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such a case, a request for examination or adjudgment must be lawful. Thus, if a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, it cannot be deemed as going through a necessary transfer procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25,

In addition, Article 12 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the document to be served shall take effect when it reaches the person to be served: Provided, That in the case of electronic service, it shall take effect when it is entered into the electronic mail address designated by the person to be served (in the case of electronic service, when it is stored in the national tax information and communications network, when it is stored)." Thus, in the case of electronic service, the service shall take effect when it is entered into the electronic mail address, regardless

(2) According to the above facts, the Defendant entered a tax payment notice to the e-mail address designated by the Plaintiff on October 5, 2010, and the service of this case became effective. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff filed an appeal on February 9, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on February 9, 201, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to have gone through a necessary transfer procedure.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.