Any lawsuit that does not go through the procedure of the preceding trial, including a request for trial, is illegal.

A lawsuit that fails to go through a pre-trial procedure, such as a request for a trial, without any justifiable reason.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap1784 Revocation, etc. of Disposition of Designation as Joint Taxpayers of Gift Tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

September 2, 2016

September 23, 2016

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 23, 2013, the defendant revoked the BB's joint and several tax obligor designation disposition against the plaintiff and the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 00,000,000, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 3, 1995, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with BB and CCC with the following contents and established DD on May 3, 1995.

CCC: A, BB: B, and C: Byung

1. A, B, and C shall jointly invest and operate the wabening Project (existing EE is separate, 2 brands).

2. The total capital shall be KRW 00,000,000,000 for each person in cash, real estate, goods, etc., and the equity shares shall be KRW 00,000 for A, 00 for C, 00% for C, 00% for C, and 00% for C, and may be invested by a third party agreement.

3. “A” shall invest FF event; “B” in cash; “C” in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (Provided, That if the FF price is less than KRW 00,000,000,000, the shortage amount shall be invested in cash; and all liabilities before the agreement shall be liable Party A).

- First-Class -

B. On May 7, 1995, the Plaintiff: (a) held title trust with the Plaintiff’s ownership of 1/7 shares out of 00-0 square meters of 00 square meters of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○○○, 00-0 square meters, and (b) BB concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff that the said real estate was sold to DD and paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff invested the said purchase price in DD to have 00 percent of the said company’s shares.

C. From July 1995 - until August 1995, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 11 parcel, other than 00-0 square meters, ○○○○-dong, 00-0 large scale 00 square meters, on the grounds of sale.

D. On July 13, 1998, the defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the above real estate on the ground of the donation made on June 12, 1995, and on the same day, the plaintiff was designated as a person jointly liable for tax payment and the decision was made on the same day.

E. On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition seeking a method of arranging the gift tax imposed and the assessment basis, etc. while the gift tax is imposed and delinquent even if he/she did not donate the said real estate to BB. On the other hand, the Plaintiff responded to the civil petition on October 23, 2013, and explained the details of imposition of gift tax and the calculation basis thereof to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not have made any donation of real estate to BB, and the defendant did not make efforts to secure credit to BB, but designated the plaintiff as a person jointly liable for gift tax, so the designation of a person jointly liable for tax payment or decision on collection against the plaintiff should be revoked.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful, since the plaintiff did not go through the procedure of the preceding trial, such as a petition for trial.

B. BB’s disposition on October 23, 2013 on the Defendant’s main defense of safety, and the Plaintiff sought revocation of the Defendant’s disposition on the designation of a person jointly and severally liable for the payment of gift tax and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,00,000 against the Plaintiff on October 23, 2013. However, the Defendant’s reply on the Defendant’s genuine civil petition filed on October 23, 2013 does not grant or restrict any right or impose any obligation on the Plaintiff, so it is difficult to view it as a disposition subject to appeal

Then, I examine this safety defense. In full view of Articles 5, 56, 61, and 68 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same), a person who is dissatisfied with the disposition imposing national taxes may institute an administrative litigation after receiving a request for examination from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and a request for a trial against the National Tax Tribunal or a request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act. A request for examination to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and a request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act shall be filed within 60 days from the date (the date of receipt of a notice of disposition) on which he/she becomes aware of the disposition. However, it is clear in the record that

As to this, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not notify the payment of gift tax, and did not follow the procedure of the previous trial because he did not receive a notice of payment of gift tax or did not receive a guidance on the procedure of the previous trial. However, Article 60(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the notification of the method of appeal should be made by the ruling authority of the appeal, the examination and the adjudication request. However, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit since it did not raise an objection.

In addition, in tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were taken in the process of step-by-step and development, and are related to each other, and the tax authority has changed the taxation disposition subject to such disposition while in the course of tax litigation and the reason for illegality is common, or where several persons are subject to the same administrative disposition due to the same administrative disposition, one of them has given the tax authority and the National Tax Tribunal an opportunity for re-determination of basic facts and legal issues, such as when the tax authority and the National Tax Tribunal have given the opportunity for re-determination of the same administrative disposition through legitimate step-by-case procedure, and it seems that it would be harsh that the taxpayer would not be obliged to pay taxes, even without going through the pre-trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10170, Apr. 14, 2006). However, this case is related to each other when two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were conducted in the process of step-by-step and development, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to have a legitimate person subject to pay the same tax disposition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.