early 2012 Middle 3267 ( October 18, 2012)

period of filing a lawsuit is calculated from the date of a subsequent disposition following the review decision.

It is reasonable to view that the appeal period following the re-audit decision shall be calculated from the date of receiving the notification of the subsequent disposition.

Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap766 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

United StatesA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

September 11, 2013

November 27, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the gift tax on October 10, 2007 against the Plaintiff on June 15, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"BB Co., Ltd. (BB BB prior to the amendment: CCC; hereinafter referred to as BB) holding a board of directors on August 17, 2007 and publicly announced the resolution to pay 16,000,000 shares of registered common shares to OOO members per share in a third party. On September 14, 2007, a board of directors was held again on a resolution to change a certain number of new shares and schedule, and then a resolution was made on October 10, 2007; (b) the Plaintiff participated in the above capital increase on October 10, 2007 and paid the same day, and acquired 88,88 shares.

C. The Board of Audit and Inspection: (a) on December 9, 2010, deemed that BB had issued capital increase to 32 persons including the Plaintiff; (b) on the premise that on the basis that the assessed value per share of the said shares is 0000 won, it notified the head of South Incheon National Tax Office that gift tax should be imposed by regarding the difference between the acquisition value of new shares and the appraised value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the donation of profits to those who have increased the value; and (c) on the premise that the head of South Incheon National Tax Office issued 2000 won for the pertinent disposition of capital increase under Article 39(1)1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); (c) on the premise that the assessment value per share of the said shares is 1000 won or less; (d) on the premise that the Plaintiff received 2010000O's of the above shares.

F. Accordingly, the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office conducted a reinvestigation pursuant to the above decision, and then notified the Plaintiff of the results of the reinvestigation as to the Plaintiff’s initial disposition. The Plaintiff was notified of the results of the disposition on March 26, 2012.

G. On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the foregoing notification, filed a second appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, 15, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The parties' assertion

"The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the intention of Doing it within 90 days from the date of receiving the notification of the subsequent disposition according to the re-examination decision of the Tax Tribunal." In this regard, the plaintiff can file a request for a trial again if the subsequent disposition is made according to the re-examination decision, and the period of filing the lawsuit of this case must be calculated from the date of notification of the decision of the subsequent trial. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed within 90 days after the plaintiff filed a

B. Determination

"In a case where a re-examination of the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on the whole or part of a single taxable unit is conducted by re-auditing the tax base and amount of tax or maintaining the original disposition according to the results of re-audit of the relevant decision, it constitutes a modified decision that has an intent to take part of the decision on the subsequent disposition of the relevant disposition by the disposition agency, such as filing an objection, a request for examination, or a request for adjudgment (hereinafter referred to as "appeal, etc."). This re-audit decision is effective as a decision on objection, etc. by supplementing the contents of the subsequent disposition of the disposition by the disposition agency. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the period of objection following the re-audit decision is calculated as from the date of receipt of the subsequent disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 2010). Therefore, the plaintiff's previous decision on the request for a re-adjudication and subsequent disposition of the Supreme Court cannot be accepted.

Pursuant to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the health team and the subsequent notice given by the said Tax Tribunal on the instant case, and the fact that the Plaintiff received on March 26, 2012 is identical as seen earlier. The Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit is clearly filed after the lapse of 90 days prescribed in Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act from that point of time. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as the map of the filing period.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.