Suwon District Court 2010Guhap9847 ( October 16, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du4293 (2010.04.02)

90 days from the date of receipt of the decision of the trial, and later, it is illegal to file a lawsuit.

The lawsuit of this case filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which a written decision on the appeal is served is unlawful as it is filed after the period for filing the lawsuit expires.

2011Nu12209 and revocation of the detailed global income and disposition

XX

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap9847 Decided February 16, 2011

May 18, 2012

June 15, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on April 24, 2009 against the plaintiff on April 24, 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 1999, the P industry (hereinafter referred to as the "P industry") was established at Silung-si 1254, and it was voluntarily closed from the head of Ansan Tax Office on March 31, 2003, and KimAA (the former part of the plaintiff) on the corporate register continued to be registered as the representative director.

B. On December 29, 2004, the XX industry reported the revision of corporate tax for the business year 2003 by adding the above amount to the calculation of the total sales revenue of 000 won in the business year 2003 as indicated in Table 1 as follows. The above amount was disposed of to KimB who was employed as a business director at the time of the inclusion of the above amount in the calculation of the total sales revenue of 00 won in the business year as stated in Table 1.

C. However, around May 2005, the director of the tax office of the Si interest and the head of the tax office conducted a tax investigation on the suspected material of the XX industry to confirm the omission of sales and the processing of the products, and the disposal of the products to KimA, registered as the representative director in the register of the register of the XX industry, and notified the Defendant of the income tax data by recognizing the above KRW 369,741,000, including the above KRW 369,

D. The Defendant, on January 1, 2006, corrected and notified to KimA on January 1, 2006, KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2003 pursuant to the above taxation data, and notified the amount of the said global income tax to be reduced by KRW 00,000, out of the amount of the said global income tax notified by the Director of the Office of Reconstruction to be the taxation data for the income amount, and corrected the amount of KRW 00,000 among the above global income tax on May 10, 2006

E. On March 19, 2007, KimA filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking revocation of the above disposition (Seoul High Court 2007Guhap2495), and on August 13, 2008, Suwon District Court declared that the above disposition was revoked. The defendant appealed, but on February 4, 2009, the appeal was dismissed and confirmed on February 26, 2009 (Seoul High Court 2008Nu25274).

F. In the process, on December 24, 2008, the director of the tax office at the time of filing a revised return on December 29, 2004, considered KimB as the actual representative, and disposed of KRW 000 to KimB, and on the same day, the director of the tax office at the time of the revised return on December 29, 2004, notified KimB of the change in the amount of income belonging to the XX industry in 203.

G. On February 19, 2009, KimB dissatisfied with this, and filed an objection with the director of the tax office of the Si interesting tax office on February 19, 2009. On March 20, 2009, the director of the Si interesting tax office, according to the re-examination decision in accordance with the review decision in the objection, deemed the actual manager and the general manager of the XX industry to be the Plaintiff, who was the former husband of KimA, and disposed of the instant amount to the Plaintiff on April 24, 2009. On the same day, the director of the Si interesting tax office notified the changes in income

H. Accordingly, on April 24, 2009, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2003.

I. The plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the defendant on August 4, 2009. On September 3, 2009, the defendant confirmed that the amount of KRW 00,000, was a processed sales, and corrected as stated in the table 2 below. As a result, the balance of the global income tax was KRW 00,000.

(j) The Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 9, 2009. However, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the above appeal on September 9, 2009, and the decision was served on the Plaintiff on April 8, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, 29 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed as it was 90 days, the peremptory period under Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Determination

Pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where an administrative litigation is instituted against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or any other tax-related Act, a prior trial procedure, such as a request for examination or adjudgment, as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, must be initiated within 90 days from the date the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified. However, the fact that the Plaintiff was served with a written decision dismissing the said request on April 8, 2010 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2010 after the elapse of 90 days thereafter is apparent in the record, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the period for filing

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices to dismiss the lawsuit of this case.