Dismissal is illegal because it does not go through the procedure of the previous trial.

Administrative litigation on any disposition under tax-related Acts shall be required to make a decision on a request for examination, a request for adjudication, and a request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, but it is illegal due to its failure

Article 55 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 56 (2) and (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2010Guhap2386 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Doz.

○ Head of tax office

May 20, 2011

June 10, 201

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 36,488,150 against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2010, and the increased additional tax of KRW 1,094,640, and the increased additional tax of KRW 1,094,640 on each of the grounds that “36,48,150 won”, “36,034,126 won” of “36,48,150 won”, “2,424,364 won” of “1,09,640 won” in the purport of the claim appears to be a clerical error in each of the following subparagraphs:

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 360,341,260 on the supply price of KRW 360,341,260 from EEE in relation to the cancellation of the sales contract for commercial buildings No. 6-1 DD 5, 61, 6175, and filed a return on the value-added tax for the first period of April 26, 2010 with the tax amount payable on April 26, 2010, but did not pay it.

B. On June 7, 2010, the Defendant issued a revised notice to the Plaintiff to pay the value-added tax of KRW 36,034,126 and the additional tax of KRW 454,029, and the Plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax and the additional tax of KRW 36,48,150. On July 12, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 36,48,150 and KRW 1,094,640.

C. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without undergoing the pre-trial procedure prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 17-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 18, 19, Eul evidence No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings No. 2 Eul evidence No. 2

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff did not go through the procedure of the previous trial on the disposition of this case.

In full view of Articles 55(1) and 56(2) and (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts shall require a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereof, or a request for examination and a decision thereon under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act to be necessary. However, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful on the ground that the fact that the Plaintiff did not undergo the aforementioned pre-trial procedure as to the disposition in this case is the same as seen earlier.

3. Conclusion

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