logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015. 11. 18. 선고 2015구단248 판결
8년 이상 재촌 자경하였는지의 여부[국승]
Title

Whether the person has re-established the family for at least eight years;

Summary

In order to institute an administrative litigation, it shall undergo a legitimate pre-trial procedure, and a lawsuit filed without going through the pre-trial procedure is illegal.

Related statutes

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

2015Gudan248 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

Plaintiff

Park AA

Defendant

Head of the Office of Government

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 14, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

November 18, 2015

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 402,849,987 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on May 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 24, 1976, the Plaintiff acquired the same 3,008 square meters as a sale and purchase, and on August 17, 199, acquired the same 642-2 square meters as the same on August 17, 199 by inheritance, but transferred it to another 852,895,000 won through the voluntary auction on July 15, 201 and August 25, 201, but did not report the transfer income tax.

B. As to the transfer of each of the above lands, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 412,94,680 of the capital gains tax for the year 201 on May 1, 201 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a notice on May 14, 2014 on the following grounds: (a) the transfer value was the successful bid price; (b) the acquisition value was the conversion acquisition value was not the farmland for at least eight years; (c) the said AA Dong 73 was not the farmland (non-business land); and (d) the said AA Dong 642-2 was deemed the farmland for at least eight years (the land for business).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the instant disposition with the National Tax Service on October 30, 2014, but was dismissed on or around October 30, 2014, and thereafter, the Plaintiff did not file a request for examination or adjudgment, and immediately filed the instant lawsuit on January 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (if available, including each number), the whole purport of oral argument

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it does not go through the procedure of the previous trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes (the procedure of request for examination or

On the other hand, Article 56(2) and Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that any administrative litigation against any unlawful or unreasonable disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or any tax-related Act shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, and any request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is extinguished. Thus, in order to file an administrative litigation for seeking a cancellation of a national tax disposition, unlike the general administrative litigation, a lawsuit filed without going through due

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without going through a request for pre-assessment review and a request for review or a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes within 90 days after a notice of rejection of the request. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed without going through a pre-trial procedure, since it cannot be seen as a request for review or a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition, the period (90 days from the date of service of a written request for a request for trial or a request for review of objection) for filing a request for a trial or a request for review of objection can no longer be further supplemented after

3. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow