본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 본안 심리에 앞서 적법한 심판청구인지 여부(각하)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 1993-02-08 | 국심1992전4056 | 기타
[Case Number]

National High Court 1992 Jeon 4056 (02.08, 1993)



[Types of Decision]


[Summary of Decision]

If a person who acquired a mining right transfers the mining right to another person before doing mining activities, it is interpreted that it is subject to value-added tax, and the initial disposition imposing value-added tax on the transfer of the right at issue is justifiable.


I reject the request for judgment.


Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Any request for review shall be made within 60 days (90 days if the taxpayer has a domicile in a foreign country) from the date on which he becomes aware of the relevant disposition (in case where he has received a notice of disposition, the date on which he receives such notice)", and Articles 81 and 65 (1) 1 of the same Act provide that where a request for review or adjudgment was made after the expiration of the period for request for review or adjudgment, or where he fails to make necessary correction within the period for correction after the examination or adjudgment,

In addition, Article 66 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any objection shall be made to the head of a tax office who has made or should have made a disposition of objection with the reason for objection under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, or to the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the district tax office through the head of the district tax office concerned." Article 66 (5) provides that "the provisions of Articles 61 (1) (main sentence) and (2), 62 (2),

8 The claimant, who was notified of the instant disposition, is confirmed by the mail delivery certificate, and the claimant raised an objection by July 7, 92, which is 60 days after the date of receipt of the notice, within 7 days after the due date of request, even though it is legitimate to do so.

Therefore, this case is decided as ordered under Article 81 and Article 65 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes because the request for a trial has not gone through legitimate procedure of the pre-trial trial.