Any request for review of legality of taxation does not fall under the preceding trial procedure.

The request for review of tax legality does not fall under the pre-trial procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes.

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

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 71,284,690 (including additional taxes of KRW 2,076,250) and value-added tax of KRW 37,92,270 (including additional taxes of KRW 1,106,560) and KRW 109,276,960, and KRW 139,773,920 (including additional taxes of KRW 4,071,080) and value-added tax of KRW 74,494,670 (including additional taxes of KRW 2,169,740) and KRW 214,268,590, each disposition of imposition of KRW 139,73,920 (including additional taxes of KRW 4,071,080) and value-added tax of KRW 74,494,670 (including additional taxes of KRW 2,169,740) for the comprehensive construction of the PlaintiffCC.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, 4, and 8 of evidence Nos. 3, 4-2, 4, and 8, as a whole.

A. The Plaintiff Jinchi Construction Co., Ltd. is a company established on April 29, 2005 for the purpose of construction business, etc., and the Plaintiff YellowB is its actual manager.

B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax for the business year 2006 between September 29, 2008 and October 22, 2008, the Director of the Busan Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff Company’s Integrated Construction reported the sales amount of KRW 538,678,520 in relation to the Jinbuk 206 project that was contracted by ParkA in return for the value-added tax and corporate tax for the business year 2006; (b) on February 2, 2009, the Director of the Busan Regional Tax Office omitted and reported the amount of KRW 538,678,520 in sales amount related to the Jinbuk 206 project that was contracted by ParkA; and (c) on February 2, 2009, he included the additional tax for KRW 139,773,920 (including additional tax for KRW 4,071,080) and KRW 74,494,7400 (including additional tax for KRW 269,279,209,208).208

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

The defendant raises a defense that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, as it was filed without going through legitimate trial procedures.

B. Determination

According to the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the tax disposition is not unlawful, unlike the discretionary transfer principle of administrative appeals applied to the general administrative litigation, it must undergo the procedure of pre-trial such as a request for examination or a request for trial as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which it becomes known that such disposition was taken,

However, in this case, according to the evidence evidence No. 11, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff CC General Construction Co., Ltd. requested a pre-assessment review notice on December 29, 2008 and received a pre-assessment review notice on January 22, 2009. However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that the pre-assessment notice is the same as the case being duly reviewed by the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, or that it does not go through the pre-assessment procedure, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiffs had gone through the pre-trial procedure. Thus, the lawsuit of this case cannot be permitted since it was filed without legitimate pre-trial procedure.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.