The revocation suit shall be instituted within one year from the date of the disposition, etc., unless there is a justifiable reason, and the period of filing the suit shall also be dismissed.

The revocation suit shall be instituted within one year from the date of the disposition, etc., unless there is a justifiable reason, and the period of filing the suit shall also be dismissed.

Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Suwon District Court 2013Gudan10292

00

000 director of the tax office

January 22, 2014

January 29, 2014

1. All the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed;

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 158,968,830 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2012 and the imposition of KRW 15,896,880 of local income tax shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 3, 2009, transferred 00-Gu 00-dong 102-38 dfrequency 201 and 301; (b) on November 3, 2009, 00-dong 00-dong 00-dong 6-1100 apartment houses 302; and (c) on the transfer of each real estate of this case, the Plaintiff did not report and pay the transfer income tax regarding the transfer of each real estate of this case.

B. On February 1, 2012, Defendant 00: (a) respectively determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 158,968,830 of capital gains tax and KRW 15,896,880 of local income tax on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions,” including imposition of capital gains tax and imposition of local income tax).

2. In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and 2. The plaintiff's assertion and related Acts and subordinate statutes

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act filed by the 000 Fund against the Plaintiff, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, and thus the Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant real estate became null and void. Despite the absence of the fact that there was no transfer margin in connection with the transfer of each of the instant real estate, the Defendants were subject to each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff on different premise, and all of the instant dispositions by the Defendants are unlawful. (b) The relevant statutes are unlawful

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

3. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant 00 director is lawful

A. First, prior to the determination on the merits, prior to the determination, Defendant 00’s lawsuit against the director of the tax office is instituted without going through the necessary pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it is inappropriate and dismissed. Therefore, it is to examine the principal safety defense of the director of the

B. According to the provisions of Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Income Tax Act, a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an unlawful or unfair disposition may not file an administrative litigation without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudication. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, who was subject to a disposition of transfer income tax under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Income Tax Act, filed a request for examination or a request for adjudication on the said disposition. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant divided tax office is unlawful as it was filed without going through

4. Whether the action against the defendant against the head of Si/Gun/Gu is legitimate

A. First of all, prior to the determination on the merits, we will examine the main defense of the head of the Gu 00:0 :00 :00 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 ; and

B. According to the provisions of Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within one year from the date of the disposition, etc., unless there exists any justifiable reason. In light of the following circumstances, the imposition disposition of local income tax on February 22, 2012 is recognized to have arisen from the date on which the Plaintiff received a written disposition stating the details of the imposition disposition of local income tax (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) under Article 93 (2) of the Local Tax Act from the apartment site of the Plaintiff, which was delegated with the authority to receive postal items by the Plaintiff, on February 22, 2012 without any assertion as to the existence of a justifiable reason, and thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be unlawful as it has been filed by the Plaintiff at the expense of the Plaintiff on February 31, 2013.

All of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.