The time period for filing an administrative litigation shall be exceeded and dismissed.

After 90 days from the day on which the disposition was known, the lawsuit of this case was filed, and the claim for a judgment of performance to the effect that the cancellation of the attachment should be made legally on the premise that the assets invested in kind are assets constitutes an unlawful action for performance

2014Guhap870 Revocation of a notice of refusal to take a corrective measure, and a claim for carry-over taxation

KoreaA

Head of the tax office

July 23, 2014

August 13, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant revoked the OOOO of capital gains tax imposed on the plaintiff on May 11, 2012, and the attachment stated by OOO of 168-4, 166, 167-1 of the same OO of the plaintiff owned by the plaintiff is the cancellation of attachment on July 30, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On March 27, 2004, the Plaintiff opened and operated O-si OBB 169 at OO-si, and closed on January 31, 201, and on January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff establishedCC-mix Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC-mix”) by investing in kind each of the following real estate (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) including the said place of business in kind on the following table.”

Parcel Number

Types

Area of a square meter;

Transfer Date

Jinay

(Date of Registration)

Date of acquisition

1

OOO OOO Ri 168-1

Land:

869

January 31, 2012

Investment in kind

January 5, 2012

December 31, 2003

2

The same Ri 169

Land:

1,168

January 31, 2012

Investment in kind

January 5, 2012

November 23, 2001

3

The same Ri 169

Buildings

595.55

January 31, 2012

Investment in kind

January 5, 2012

November 23, 2001

4

The same Ri 169

Buildings

441.99

January 31, 2012

Investment in kind

January 5, 2012

on March 30, 2004

5

The same Ri 167-2

Land (former)

578

January 31, 2012

Transfer of Registration

December 31, 2003

6

The same Ri 166

Land (former)

501

January 31, 2012

Transfer of Registration

December 31, 2003

7

The same Ri 165

Land:

109

January 31, 2012

Investment in kind

January 5, 2012

December 31, 2003

8

The same Ri 167-1

Land (former)

115

January 31, 2012

Transfer of Registration

December 31, 2003

9

The same Ri 169-2

Land:

85

January 31, 2012

Investment in kind

January 5, 2012

November 23, 2001

10

The same Ri 168-5

Land (former)

57

January 31, 2012

Transfer of Registration

December 31, 2003

11

The same Ri 168-4

Land (former)

23

January 31, 2012

Transfer of Registration

December 31, 2003

B. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a preliminary return of the OOOOO on the investment in kind of each of the instant real estate with the purchaser asCC; (b) but did not pay the preliminary return by March 31, 2012, the payment deadline; (c) on May 11, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax OOOO (including additional payment); (d) on the other hand, the Defendant did not pay the said capital gains tax; (e) on July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction against the Defendant under Article 16 of the OOOO-type 16, 167-1, 168-4 (hereinafter referred to as the “OO-type 167-1, 168-4 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”); and (e) completed the attachment registration of the same month.

"However, on September 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) filed an objection on September 17, 2012; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for carried-over taxation on the conversion into a corporation, and (c) filed an objection on October 24, 2012; (b) on February 12, 2013, the Daegu Regional Tax Office decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination on February 12, 2013, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided to dismiss the request for examination on June 12, 2013, and a certified copy of the decision was served on the Plaintiff on June 19, 2013.

F. After that, on September 11, 2013, CCTV filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (Seoul District Court 2013Gu ConsolidatedOO), but on December 6, 2013, the above court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant rendered the said rejection disposition against the Plaintiff, and the above ruling became final and conclusive at that time," and “(g) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant on December 27, 2013 (Seoul District Court 2013Gu ConsolidatedOOOO). However, on April 19, 2013, the above court rejected the lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff had been notified of the rejection disposition on the ground that: (b) on June 19, 2013, the period for filing the lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that: (c) on December 21, 2012>

Facts without any dispute, obvious in records, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the main defense, etc.

A. Judgment on the part on the claim for revocation of disposition in this case

1) The Defendant asserts that the part concerning the claim for revocation of the instant disposition among the instant lawsuit pertains to the lapse of the filing period, and thus, is unlawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, on September 11, 2013 and December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, and that the filing period did not exceed the filing period.

2) Notwithstanding Article 18(1) main sentence of Article 18(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under this Act, and Article 56(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that an administrative litigation under Article 56(2) shall be filed within 90 days from the date the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified, notwithstanding

Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, a taxpayer’s tax liability is determined by the act of having the taxpayer determine the tax base and tax amount and filing a return specifically. Therefore, even if the tax authority issues a tax payment notice by adding additional dues to the amount of tax reported by the tax authority on the ground that the taxpayer fails to fulfill his/her tax liability, this is merely a combined disposition of collection ordering the performance of the tax liability finalized by the return and a disposition of imposition and collection of additional tax thereon (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013DuOOO, Feb. 1

According to the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition of capital gains tax among the claims for revocation of the disposition of this case is inappropriate as a claim seeking the revocation of taxation without absence of a principal tax disposition. (3) A request for review or administrative litigation against the disposition of this case cannot be deemed as a request for review or administrative litigation against the disposition of this case, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date when the transfer income tax was reported or the date when the disposition of this case was known. Thus, it is unlawful as it is against

B. Judgment on the part concerning the claim for cancellation of disposition

On the other hand, under the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition, or a lawsuit seeking a formation judgment ordering an administrative agency to directly conduct an administrative disposition having the same effect as having taken a certain administrative disposition is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97NuOOO, Sept. 30, 197). In order for the Plaintiff to seek a performance judgment ordering the Defendant to cancel the disposition of this case on the premise that the land at issue is a legally invested asset inCC, constitutes a performance lawsuit demanding the Defendant to actively perform a certain act against the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

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