The lawsuit of this case is not appropriate because it was brought without due process of the preceding trial.

Since the lawsuit of this case was immediately brought without filing a request for examination or adjudgment, it is inappropriate that the lawsuit of this case was brought without going through legitimate pre-trial procedure.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning other Acts

2014Guhap220 Value Added Tax base and output tax amount;

LAA

○ Head of tax office

November 11, 2014

2014.12.09

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 correction and notification of value-added tax amounting to KRW 325,280 for the second term of 2013 against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4:

A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in real estate rental business in ○○○○○○-ro 23, 2013, filed a return on the output tax amount of 38,564, subtracting the input tax amount of 118,059 won from the output tax amount of 38,564, and filed a return on the tax amount of 79,495 won, subtracting the input tax amount of 110,692 won from the output tax amount of 38,564 won for the second period of 2013. The Plaintiff filed a return on the tax amount of 72,128,128, including the input tax amount of 394,018 won.

B. Accordingly, on May 21, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 325,280,00 in total, KRW 10,523,00,00,000, when the Plaintiff filed a return of value-added tax for the amount of KRW 79,495, which became final and conclusive for the second period of February 2013, but erroneously reported the amount of unpaid refund to KRW 394,01,000,000. The notice of payment was served to the Plaintiff on May 26, 2014.

C. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but was dismissed on June 27, 2014, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on July 31, 2014.

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18 (1), Article 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Article 61 (1) of the same Act provides that a request for examination shall be filed within 90 days from the date (the date on which a notice of disposition is received) on which the relevant disposition is known. Thus, an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of a disposition must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. According to the above facts recognized, an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of the disposition must undergo such a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, according to the above facts, the plaintiff was served with the notice of payment of the disposition in this case on May 26, 2014 and raised an objection against the defendant on June 27, 2014. Thus, the lawsuit in this case

3. Conclusion

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