The lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was brought without going through legitimate whole island procedures.

The fact that the plaintiff did not request a review or trial within 90 days from the date of notification of the decision on the plaintiff's objection is apparent in the record, and the lawsuit in this case is illegal as it was raised without due process.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

DoAAA

Kim Jong-soo

April 12, 2013

May 3, 2013

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 value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first period of June 7, 2011 against the Plaintiff on June 7, 2012 (which appears to be written in the purport of the claim on June 21, 2012) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 3, 2005 to December 31, 2011, the Plaintiff was engaged in the scrap metal wholesale business with the trade name of Ometallic.

B. The Plaintiff received 10 copies of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 000,000 from OO (hereinafter “OO”) which is a seller of scrap metal and non-ferrous metal at the first time of 201, and filed a return of value-added tax, and received deduction of the input tax amount.

C. On June 7, 2012, the director of Busan Regional Tax Office determined that O was the sales of fake tax invoices as a result of the investigation related to transaction order withO, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data. On June 7, 2012, the head of Busan Regional Tax Office issued by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, deducted the input tax amount on the ground that the said tax invoice was false, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of January 201 by adding additional tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Commissioner of the Busan Regional Tax Office, but was dismissed on September 27, 2012, and the decision of dismissal was served on the Plaintiff on October 4, 2012.

E. Meanwhile, around December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to the Busan District Court on the jurisdiction of the revocation lawsuit against the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, at the plaintiff's place of business, consulted about the OO's representative director, and received the O's certified transcript of register, business registration certificate, and strong OO's name, and transferred the price to the O's corporate account after purchasing the O's name, so it was done normally with the O, and even if the O is a disguised business operator, the plaintiff did not know that the O was a disguised business operator in light of the above transaction circumstances, so long as the O did not confirm the actual business of the O's name, the disposition of this case was unlawful, although the O did not know that the O was a disguised business operator.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. According to Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 56(2), 61(2), and 68(1), and 68(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where an administrative litigation is filed against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for examination or adjudgment, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes, shall be filed within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition is known (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt of the notice of disposition), and where a request for examination or adjudgment has been filed, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date the decision on the application for objection is notified. The facts that the plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition in this case with the Commissioner of the Busan Regional Tax Office on October 4, 2012 are clearly recorded in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed without due process.

B. Regarding this, the plaintiff requested the defendant to change the jurisdiction of this case from the Changwon District Court pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act to the Busan District Court pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and agreed by the defendant, so it constitutes "if there is any other justifiable reason" pursuant to Article 18 (2) 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which provides for the exception of the necessary transfer principle, or "if there is any other justifiable reason" pursuant to Article 18 (3) 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, or "if there is any wrong notification that there is no need to go through an administrative appeal" pursuant to Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and even if not, it is argued that there is no need to go through the preceding procedure because "if there is any rejection ruling of an administrative appeal already made on the same case" pursuant to Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not stipulate that "any administrative litigation against a disposition made illegally under Article 55555 cannot be filed without a request for adjudication or a decision thereon".

4. Conclusion

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