logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014. 12. 23. 선고 2013구합58948 판결
심판청구기간 도과로 인하여 전치의 요건을 갖추지 못함[국승]
Title

The time limit for the appeal does not meet the requirements of the transfer due to the excess of the time limit for appeal

Summary

After the lapse of 90 days from the date of service of the disposition, a petition for a trial was filed. Since it constitutes an illegal case due to the excess of the period for a petition for a trial, it constitutes an unlawful lawsuit that does not meet the requirements for a pre-determination, it shall

Related statutes

Article 68 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

2013Guhap58948 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

Plaintiff

1. AAAAA corporation;

2. BB

Defendant

CC director of the tax office

Conclusion of Pleadings

November 7, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

December 23, 2014

Text

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

"The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 2009 against Plaintiff AAA corporation (hereinafter only referred to as Plaintiff AA corporation) on or around September 2012, 209 (the first term portion of the head seems to be a clerical error), 73,053, 310 won of value-added tax of 79,975,730 won of corporate tax of 2009, value-added tax of 31,943,210 won of value-added tax of 2010, and of 39,609,950 won of corporate tax of 2010 and 39,609,9,300 won of value-added tax of 209 (the first term portion of the head seems to be a clerical error) and corporate tax of 52,907,430 won of corporate tax of 209, the first term portion of value-added tax of 10,528,305 won of corporate tax of 2010, each business year.

Reasons

According to Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a secondary taxpayer who receives a notice of payment and is dissatisfied with a notice of payment pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes is dissatisfied with such notice of payment, an administrative litigation may be initiated only through a request for examination or adjudgment under the same Act. In such cases, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful, such as comply with the request period, and where a request for examination or adjudgment is illegal due to the lapse of the period, administrative litigation shall also be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu80914, Jun. 25, 1991).

On the other hand, according to Article 68 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for a trial must be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) of the relevant

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 6-1 through 19, the notice date and the service date of each disposition of this case are the same as the notice Nos. 1 and the service details, and the plaintiff is dissatisfied with this, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff filed a request for trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 30, 2012 after the lapse of 90 days from the service date of each disposition of this case.

이에 대하여 원고는 이 사건 각 처분의 송달내역 중 DDD에게 교부송달한 부분은 DDD가 원고 회사와 하등 관련이 없는 사람이므로,EEE이 수령한 부분은 EEE 역시 원고 회사의 직원이거나 원고 BBB의 가족이 아니며 그 주소도 DDD의 요청 에 따라 임의로 변경된 것이므로, 모두 부적법한 송달이라고 주장한다. |

However, evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1 and 4-2, and witness testimony of DD are the employees in charge of the construction of the plaintiff company, and the EE received a partial disposition from the plaintiffs, which was recorded as a live-in partner at the time, can be recognized as the fact that it is the householder FOF 'OO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that was registered as a live-in partner at the time. According to the above facts, since all the documents were not served on the person to be served at the address of the title holder, they are served on the person who can identify the company as his employee or live-in partner, and therefore it is reasonable to deem that the documents are legitimate service under Articles 8 and 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit is illegal because it falls under the case where the appeal is illegal due to the dissolution of the period and it does not meet the requirements of the transfer, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow