(a) When service of a written decision is taken effect, if an employee receives such written decision;

(b) Effect of a disposition imposing value-added tax on the grounds that the value-added tax is exempted or is not liable for tax;

(c)in the sense of declaring the invalidity of taxation as a matter of course, a claim for revocation and a requirement for filing a lawsuit for revocation; and

A. Even if a person who filed a formal objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes received a written decision on his/her formal objection and later delivered the written decision to the claimant, the service of the written decision becomes effective on the day on which the written decision was served on the employee, and it does not take effect only when it is delivered to the

B. Even though value-added tax was exempted on the supply of goods or services or did not have any tax liability, the illegality of the disposition imposing value-added tax was found to constitute a cause for revocation of the imposition of tax by misunderstanding the legal relations or factual relations of the taxable object, and it does not constitute a cause for revocation as a matter of course.

(c)in the case of an administrative litigation seeking its revocation in the sense of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition, the procedure for filing the lawsuit must meet the requirements for filing the suit, such as compliance with the filing period.

D. An administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition shall not be filed unless all the procedures for a request for review and a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes are satisfied.

(a) Article 68(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 19(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 18(d) of the same Act; Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu346 delivered on February 24, 1981. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu69 delivered on October 26, 1982. Supreme Court Decision 82Da501 delivered on April 12, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 75Nu128 delivered on April 24, 197. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu175 delivered on May 29, 1984. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879 delivered on May 27, 1986.

Plaintiff

Head of Three Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu319 delivered on February 2, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in determining the appropriateness of the previous trial of this case, the court below acknowledged the fact that, based on macro evidence, the defendant was ordered to impose the value-added tax of this case on the plaintiff on July 16, 1985 and received an objection against it from the plaintiff on August 26 of the same month, and sent the written decision by registered mail on the same day and received it by the non-party, who is an employee of the annual coal plant of the plaintiff management of this month on the same day. At that time, the plaintiff did not appear to be seen as the non-party's 27th day of the same month, and he received the written decision from the above non-party's 31th day of the same month and received it from the above non-party's 29th day of the same year, and thereafter, the plaintiff did not receive it from the above non-party's 29th day of the same year, but did not receive it from the above non-party's 17th day of the same month.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu346 delivered on February 24, 1981) and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.

Even though the value-added tax is exempted or imposed on the supply of goods or services by the plaintiff, such as the theory of novels, even if the defendant misleads the defendant to impose the value-added tax, the illegal cause falls under the legal relations or factual relations of the subject of taxation and does not constitute grounds for revocation. In the sense of declaring the invalidity of the administrative disposition as a matter of course, in the case of an administrative litigation seeking its revocation, it shall meet the requirements for filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu175 delivered on May 29, 1984). The administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the taxation can not be filed without going through both the request for review and the procedure for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879 delivered on May 27, 1986), and the theories are inappropriate for the subject of this case. In addition, all of the grounds for appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)