Seoul High Court 2013Nu14261 ( October 23, 2013)

Seocho 2012west 1503 (20 August 2012)

Since a request for a trial was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receipt of notice of disposition, it is illegal due to the failure to go through legitimate

The Plaintiff is deemed to have received a notice of disposition on December 8, 201, and thus, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to dismiss it since it is not in accordance with the procedure of the previous trial since it was not subject to the procedure of the previous trial by filing a trial with the Tax Tribunal on December 09.

2013Du24297 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

LAA

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu14261 Decided October 23, 2013

on April 30, 2014

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The main text of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit may be brought without going through an administrative appeal against the disposition." This provision provides that "This provision shall not apply where there is a provision that a revocation lawsuit may not be brought without going through an administrative appeal against the disposition."

On the other hand, Article 56 (2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or administrative litigation against illegal dispositions under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date when a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon is notified. Articles 61 (1) and 68 (1) of the same Act provide that "any request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the relevant disposition is known (the date when a notice of disposition is received)

Therefore, an appeal seeking cancellation of a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts shall be filed, through a request for examination or adjudgment, and in case where the request for examination or adjudgment, which is a procedure of the previous trial, is unlawful as it does not go through a prior trial

2. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff received a tax payment notice of the instant disposition by visiting the calendar on December 8, 201, by directly visiting the investigation division of calendar affairs; (b) the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 9, 2012, the 90th anniversary thereof; and (c) the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision dismissing the appeal on August 20, 2012 on the ground that the appeal was not filed within the period for filing the appeal of 90 days. In so doing, the lower court determined that the appeal filed on March 9, 2012, 2012, the period for filing the appeal of which 90 days elapsed from the date the Plaintiff received the tax payment notice, is unlawful, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, as well as the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of

Examining the record, the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment are justifiable, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The allegation in the grounds of appeal is that the lower court’s judgment, contrary to this, was unlawful even though the Plaintiff received a tax notice of the instant disposition after December 14, 201. This is merely an error of the selection of evidence or fact-finding belonging to the lower court’s exclusive authority, which is a fact-finding court, and thus,

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.