Whether the expenses of this case may be ratified as necessary expenses

The disposition of this case is legitimate because it did not go through the pre-trial procedure on the disposition of this case.

Article 56 of the Basic National Tax Act

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Guhap1863

***

ㅁㅁ세무서장

The second instance decision

National Rotations

July 5, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 61,084,390, and corporate tax of KRW 203,971,450 for the year 2013 imposed on the Plaintiff on November 10, 2014 (including each additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff is a corporation that engaged in a wedding business in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu. B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on July 2014 with respect to the Plaintiff, and confirmed the omission of KRW 2,244,188,983 (including KRW 654,658,088, KRW 1,589,530,895 in the business year 2012, and confirmed that the response cost was KRW 1,066,220,898 in the deductible expenses. On November 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax (including the notice of the change), KRW 61,084,390 in the business year 2013, corporate tax 203,971,450 in the business year 2013 (including the notice of the change), and the following notice of the disposition of imposition (hereinafter referred to as “the income amount”).

Year

Income Earners

Disposal of Income

Amount of income;

Jinay

2012 Magna Forest

The bonus243,393,576 Kim Chuncheon and Pasts shall be Pasts by the representative director of the plaintiff.

243,393,576 Limit limits

486,787,152 2013 Glag Forest

Bonuses 457,799,916 Plastics

bonus457,799,916 System

915,599,832 Totals

1,402,386,984 (units: Won)

C. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the notice of change in the amount of income in this case and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 2, 2015, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on May 20, 2015. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 1, 2, 7, 13, and 14, and the purport of the whole

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that " Notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2) and Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition as provided in Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon shall not be filed."

Meanwhile, in tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were conducted in the course of step-by-step and development, and are related to each other. In the event that the tax authority has changed the taxation disposition subject to such disposition while continuing tax administrative litigation and the same administrative disposition has common grounds for illegality, or where several persons have identical duties by the same administrative disposition, one of the persons liable for tax payment and the National Tax Tribunal has granted the opportunity to re-determine basic facts and legal issues, as in the preceding disposition or when they go through legitimate pre-trial procedure, and where there are justifiable reasons, the taxpayer may file an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition even without going through the pre-trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25817, May 28, 2009). However, it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to file an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition without going through the same taxation disposition prior to the change of the amount of income subject to taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25817, Dec. 126, 2014).

Furthermore, even if the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a judgment on the basic factual basis and legal issues regarding whether the inclusion of deductible expenses in the Plaintiff’s assertion in the pre-trial procedure on the notice of change in the amount of income, there is no reason to deem that it would be harsh to deem that the Plaintiff would be subject to the pre-trial procedure regarding the disposition of the instant corporate tax. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff had gone through the pre-trial procedure on the notice of change in the amount of income, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for the pre-trial procedure regarding the disposition of the instant corporate tax, which is a completely separate disposition, and therefore, the Plaintiff should undergo the pre-trial procedure regarding the disposition of the instant corporate tax, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

July 5, 2017

presiding judge***