It is improper to go through the procedure of the previous trial without going through the procedure

In the case of an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, it is illegal without going through the preceding trial procedure even though it must undergo the procedure of a request for examination or adjudication.

2011Guhap721 Revocation of Disposition of Taxation of Capital Gains Tax

XX

The superintendent of the tax office

October 7, 2011

October 21, 2011

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff on February 7, 201l (the "statement on February 10, 201" seems to be a clerical error) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the land and above-ground buildings of 000-00 east-si to thisA, and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax base to the Defendant on February 1, 2010.

B. On February 7, 2011, the Defendant denied part of the necessary expenses indicated in the scheduled return of capital gains tax base submitted by the Plaintiff, and imposed a disposition of KRW 9,829,055 on the Plaintiff for capital gains tax reverted to the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without undergoing a request for examination or adjudgment under Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the disposition of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In the case of an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of a tax imposition disposition, it must undergo a pre-trial procedure under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as a request for examination or a request for trial under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had undergone a pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate due to its failure

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.