(2) If it does not meet any of the requirements of the

Since the request for review, which is the procedure of the previous trial, is illegal due to the time limit, the lawsuit of this case is also unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of the previous

Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2019Guhap195 Value-Added Tax, etc.

land ○

Defendant, (P) Appellants

Head of PP Tax Office

May 3, 2019

May 31, 2019

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 13,457,140 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2018 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 20, 2009 to May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff is from 00 OO-ro 123 (00 Dong) to 00 O-ro 123 (00 Dong).

Fishery products wholesale and retail chain is a person who operates ○○ Distribution.

B. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 55,080,000,000, in total, three of the three false tax invoices from the KON Day, which is a business partner, at the second half of 2011; (b) processed the Plaintiff’s input tax amount of KRW 55,080,000 from the output tax amount for the second half of 201; and (c) added the second half of 201 to the Plaintiff.

The tax was imposed after correction of KRW 13,457,140 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on April 2, 2018, but the commissioner of the LL Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on May 17, 2018, and the Plaintiff filed a request for examination on September 5, 2018.

D. On November 21, 2018, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for examination on the ground that the Plaintiff’s agent did not file a request for examination within 90 days from May 25, 2018 upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s decision to dismiss the request, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful since the input tax amount was not deducted only for the Plaintiff’s processing and purchase, and the output tax amount was not reduced for the processing and sale.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for review after the lapse of 90 days from May 25, 2018, on which the date on which the Plaintiff received notification of the decision to file an objection, and the request for review, which is a procedure for the previous trial, is inappropriate due to the lapse

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) According to Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a person is dissatisfied with a disposition imposing gift tax, an administrative litigation may be instituted only through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In this case, a request for examination or adjudgment must be lawful, such as complying with the request period. If a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to an excessive period of time, administrative litigation is not satisfied, and it is illegal. This does not change even if an administrative agency made an substantial decision after excluding it against an illegal request for adjudgment with the request period for a pre-trial procedure. This does not change even if an administrative agency received a request for adjudication with excessive notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu754, Nov. 24, 1987; 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). In addition, under Article 61(1) and (2), 66(1), (6), or 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for examination or adjudgment within 90 days after receipt of the notice.

B) Article 59-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that Article 59(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning a representative shall apply mutatis mutandis to the authority of the public representative, and Article 59(4) of the same Act provides that "the representative may perform all acts concerning the request or request on his/her behalf."

2) Specific determination

A) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the evidence as seen earlier, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 7, and the purport of all the statements and arguments as to Eul evidence No. 7 as to this case, it is reasonable to deem that the decision to dismiss an objection against the disposition of this case was served on the plaintiff on April 2, 2018 on the ground that the plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of a public representative with the Busan Regional Tax Office on April 12, 2018 and the director of LLJ designated the Busan Regional Tax Office as the plaintiff's public representative and notified the plaintiff on April 16, 2018. The plaintiff's subsequent rejection of the plaintiff's objection and the decision was delivered to the JJ on May 25, 2018, and the authority of the public representative is also included in the authority to receive the decision of objection.

B) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review on September 5, 2018. Thus, it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the petition for review after the lapse of 90 days from May 25, 2018 upon receipt of the notification of the decision to dismiss the petition for review on September 5, 2018. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in the instant case is unlawful due to the lapse of the period and fails to meet the requirements for the transfer under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.