Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap38183 (Law No. 12, 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 prior trial of the instant lawsuit, since it was not subject to the prior trial by filing a trial with the Tax Tribunal on December 9,

2013Nu14261 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

LAA

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap38183 decided April 12, 2013

October 2, 2013

October 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 14, 201, as described in the separate sheet, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following paragraphs to the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized by this court, and therefore it is identical to the entry of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the fact that the output date of the instant tax payment notice was written on December 14, 201, the Plaintiff’s receipt date of the instant tax payment notice was not December 8, 2011, but after December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff’s petition for the instant appeal filed on March 9, 2012 was within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition was known.

When a tax payment notice sent to the Plaintiff on December 7, 201, which was sent on December 2, 201, based on the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by this judgment, was returned, the Defendant again sent a tax payment notice by mail to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2011, and requested the Plaintiff to receive a tax payment notice by directly visiting the same day, ② the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant tax payment notice by December 8, 201, written confirmation (Evidence B) stating that “the receipt of the instant tax payment notice shall be confirmed,” and the date of receipt was stated and signed by the Plaintiff on December 8, 201, ③ the Plaintiff’s name was stated and signed by 10 on December 1, 201, and ③ the Plaintiff’s signature and signature was not only made on the 20th anniversary of the signing date of the instant tax payment notice, but also on the 10th anniversary of the signing date of the instant tax payment notice by the Plaintiff’s signature and the Plaintiff’s signature.

Therefore, the instant petition for a trial filed on March 9, 2012 was filed after the lapse of 90 days from December 8, 201, when the Plaintiff received the instant tax payment notice, and thus, is unlawful. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is not subject to lawful pre-trial procedure, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.