beta
Text
The judgment below
Of those, the part concerning the chief of the Si/Eup tax office shall be reversed.
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the head of Si/Eup tax office.
Reasons
1. First of all, among requests made by the head of the Si/Eup/Myeon, the determination is made ex officio on the revocation of the imposition of global income tax.
The re-audit decision that has been conducted in practice as a type of the decision on the objection, etc. is a modified decision that has the intent to take the contents of the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the objection, etc. by considering the results of re-audit of the disposition agency on the matters pointed out in the decision.
Thus, the re-audit decision shall take effect as a decision on the objection, etc. by supplementing the contents of the re-audit decision by the follow-up disposition of the agency. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the period of the request for review, the period of the request for trial or the period of the administrative litigation shall
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514 Decided June 25, 2010 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 2010). Meanwhile, Article 55 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 201) provides that “Any person whose rights or interests have been infringed upon by either receiving an unlawful or unreasonable disposition or failing to obtain a necessary disposition as a disposition under this Act or tax-related Acts may file a request for examination or adjudgment under this Chapter to cancel or modify such disposition, or make a necessary disposition.” The main text of Article 55(1) provides that “The disposition on an objection, request for examination or
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that an adjudication which has gone through the appeal procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be filed again.
B. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts.
(1) On February 4, 2008, the head of Si/Eup/Myeon tax office imposed the global income tax of this case on the Plaintiff.