Cheongju District Court 2014Guhap1071, 2015)

90 days after the date on which the disposition became known is illegal.

The filing of an objection is illegal to have been filed with the lapse of the time limit for filing the objection, and the lawsuit of this case is also filed without going through legitimate pre-trial procedures, and is unlawful in violation of Article 56 (2) of

Period for exclusion of imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2015Nu10187

OO

O Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court 2014Guhap1071

2016.03.23

2016.04.20

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "14" shall be added to "10, 5" in Part 3 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part of Part 4 through 5 of Part 4 [2.c.2] shall be as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

“2) As to the Defendant’s above main safety objection, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit was lawful, since the Defendant’s tax assessment based on the Defendant’s notice of payment as of April 19, 2013, withdrawn the tax assessment based on the Defendant’s previous notice of payment as of March 21, 2013 and conducted a new disposition. As such, the Defendant’s period for filing an objection against the Defendant’s tax assessment should be calculated as of April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff received the notice of payment as of April 19, 2013.

As seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) the second value-added tax for 2010 by the instant company

(6) Upon 200 won and 2010, the Plaintiff was designated as the second taxpayer on March 21, 2013, and the imposition of value-added tax [30 won + 00% + 70%) and 00 won of corporate tax [30% + 00% of additional tax] to the Defendant on March 21, 2013. Also, according to the witness AA and BB’s testimony, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9 through 2, 14 and 14, the Defendant sent the above payment notice to the Plaintiff on March 27, 2013, each of the above payment notice to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2013 (3.0%). The Defendant sent the payment notice to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2013, each of the above payment notice to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2013.

(3) In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① where the payment deadline expires within 14 days from the date of arrival of the notification of tax payment, ii. 3 months from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, i.e., 3 months from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 2.3 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 1.3 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 3.4 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 3.4 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 1.4 days from the date of receipt of the respective notification of tax payment, 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment, 3.4 days from the date of receipt of the respective notification of tax payment period, 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification of tax payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.