1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff seeking revocation of the instant disposition on the grounds that the instant disposition is against the principle of substantial taxation, on the grounds that the Plaintiff is not the actual subject of the transfer of real estate, which served as the basis for the imposition of capital gains tax stated in the purport of the claim.

However, Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit may be brought without going through an administrative appeal against the disposition" in the main text of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the same shall not apply where other Acts prescribe that "a revocation lawsuit may not be brought without going through an administrative appeal against the disposition."

Meanwhile, Article 56(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “Any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or any tax-related Act shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon is notified,” and Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the same Act provide that “any request for evaluation or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is known (if a notice

Therefore, an appeal seeking cancellation of a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts shall be filed, through a request for examination or adjudgment, and in case where the request for examination or adjudgment, which is a procedure of the previous trial, is unlawful as it does not go through a prior

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du24297 Decided April 30, 2014, etc.). However, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Nos. 1 and 2 (including two or more numbers), the Plaintiff was served with a tax payment notice by registered mail on April 15, 2015, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 22, 2015, and the Tax Tribunal’s appeal filed by the Plaintiff on October 27, 2015 is unlawful.