Dismissal due to Non-performance of Transit Procedures

As the instant disposition did not go through the necessary pre-trial procedure required by the Framework Act on National Taxes without filing a request for examination or a request for trial with respect to the instant disposition, the instant lawsuit is inappropriate due to its failure to

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 45,083,340 won (45,083,340 won seems to have clearly written errors in KRW 43,770,240) that was made on May 2, 2006 against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2006 by the Plaintiff as the payment deadline shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) sold KRW 163,680,000 to ○○○○○○ apartment site development zone in ○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment site development zone in 204,60,000 and paid KRW 163,680,00 as a down payment and an intermediate payment, etc.; (b) sold the remainder of KRW 40,620,000 to ○○○○ on May 22, 2002; and (c) reported the transfer income tax of KRW 176,680,000 with the transfer value of the sales right of this case as KRW 176,680,00.

B. However, on December 29, 2003, 000, ○○○○, which purchased the instant sales right from the Plaintiff, reported that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 282,50,000 of the sales right of this case from the Plaintiff, while transferring apartment units on the instant sales right to ○○○○ on December 29, 200. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed KRW 282,50,000 of the acquisition value of the instant sales right reported by ○○○○ as the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s sales right of this case, and imposed KRW 68,340,320 on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2006.

C. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's objection against the above disposition on May 30, 2006 was defective, and the defendant, as a result of confirming the actual transaction value of the right to sell this case to ○○○, the purchaser of the right to sell this case, 282,50,000 won of acquisition value reported by ○○○, including the remaining 40,920,000 won, purchased the right to sell this case without paying the balance. The plaintiff's transfer margin of the right to sell this case's right to sell this case's amount of KRW 77,00,00,000, which was confirmed as 68,340,320 won of transfer income tax for the year of 202, which was initially imposed on June 15, 2006, corrected to 43,770,240 won (hereinafter "the remaining disposition of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3-2, Eul 4-1, Eul 5-2, each entry

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the transfer value of the instant sales right transferred by the Plaintiff to ○○○ was 205,00,000 won, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the premise that the transfer value was 240,680,000 won, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

(a) First, Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18 (1), Article 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act," and Articles 61 (2) and 68 (2) of the same Act provide that "in cases of a request for examination or adjudgment after going through an objection, it shall be filed within 90 days from the date the decision on the objection is notified".

B. However, with respect to the instant disposition, the fact that the Plaintiff was notified of the decision on the objection on June 27, 2006 and did not file a request for examination or adjudication at all until 90 days have passed is without dispute between the parties concerned. This is unlawful because the instant lawsuit was not subject to the necessary pre-trial procedure required under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as it did not meet the requirements for litigation (the Supreme Court decision required by the Plaintiff is related to the case of filing a revocation lawsuit against the disposition under the Local Tax Act, and is not appropriate to invoke the instant case to which the Framework

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.