National Tax Service Review Division 2010-0126 (Law No. 12, 2010)

rejection as illegal to the extent of the filing period.

The administrative litigation related to national taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the plaintiff received a written decision on the request for examination or adjudgment, but the lawsuit in this case is dismissed as it is illegal to have been filed with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

2010Guhap2482 Tax revocation

XX Kim

O Head of tax office

June 9, 2011

June 30, 2011

1. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 5,436,639 of value-added tax of KRW 14,597,236 of value-added tax of KRW 2,205 against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2010 and value-added tax of KRW 5,436,639 of value-added tax of KRW 2

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has registered his business in the name of the Plaintiff’s wife under the name of the leastA and engages in the sales business of steel in Cheongju-si, XX Dong 00-0.

B. On January 25, 2006, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the value-added tax for 2005 of the GATT General Steel, and on January 25, 2007, value-added tax for 271, 2006 of the XX General Steel.

C. As a result of the investigation into the GATT General Steel, the Defendant: (a) determined that the amount of value-added tax on the value-added tax of February 2005 was omitted in the amount of KRW 8,020,00, and KRW 35,100,000, which was supplied to the site of Cheongju-si O-Gu O-dong 00-0, 000; and (b) determined that the amount of value-added tax on the amount of value-added tax of KRW 8,802,00 for the portion omitted in the sales of the second half of 2005 and KRW 5,396,506, plus KRW 14,198,506 for the portion omitted in the sales of the second half of 206, KRW 35,100 for the portion omitted in the sales of the second half of 206, KRW 36,376,675,676,767, and KRW 75,2767.7

D. On November 3, 2009, LA requested a pre-assessment review on the ground that the Plaintiff only lent the name of its representative to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was not fully involved in the operation of the XX integrated steel. The Defendant accepted the claim of the LA on December 30, 2009 and decided to impose the value-added tax on the LA, 2005, 2006, and 2006, 2006, on the Plaintiff as the actual operator of the MA, not the LAA, and on April 2, 2010, imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax of 205, 2005, 205, 597, 236, 2715, 436, and 639, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. On June 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the instant disposition with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on July 12, 2010, and the written decision was served on the Plaintiff on July 22, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5 to Eul evidence 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff was omitted from the part of the above return was unlawful, since the plaintiff filed a tax invoice of this case at the time of the return of value-added tax on January 25, 2006 and January 25, 2007 on February 25, 2005 and February 6, 2006,240,000 among the omitted sales amount of this case, and the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff was omitted from the part of the above return.

3. Determination on the Defendant’s defense of this safety

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after 90 days from the date on which the decision on the petition for review was notified, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed because the time limit for filing the lawsuit of this case is too excessive.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts cannot be initiated without undergoing a decision on a request for examination or adjudgment, and the administrative litigation shall be instituted within 90 days after the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment

(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s petition for examination was filed with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 21, 2010 against the instant disposition, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for examination on July 12, 2010. The fact that the decision was served on the Plaintiff on July 22, 2010 is as seen earlier. The instant lawsuit was filed on November 4, 2010 after 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff was served with the written decision on the request for examination. Thus, it is obvious that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 4, 2010. Thus, it is unlawful that the Plaintiff’s petition was filed with the lapse of the filing period (On the other hand, on August 9, 2010, the date on which the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rejected the request for examination. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s petition for examination was lawful on account of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 12 No. 13, the Plaintiff’s. 120 and 208. 6.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.