1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) in addition to the “relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” attached to the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) in addition to the addition of the “determination on the plaintiff’s argument” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the defendant's prior notice of taxation omitted and the procedural defect of deprived of the plaintiff's opportunity for pre-assessment review was unlawful.

In addition, the pre-assessment review system has been established to enhance the effectiveness of the protection of rights by reflecting taxpayer's claims in the pre-assessment stage separate from the post-assessment remedy system after the taxation was imposed. However, where the exclusion period of the taxation imposition is imminent, it does not constitute an essential premise for the taxation disposition, such as omitting it. Moreover, it does not directly affect taxpayer's rights and duties because the taxpayer did not have an opportunity to request the pre-assessment review, and there are procedures to appeal the legality of taxation through the procedures, such as a request for objection, request for adjudgment, administrative litigation, etc., as prescribed by statutes, which are ex post facto remedy procedures, even though the defendant did not have an opportunity to request the pre-assessment review in the instant disposition, it cannot be deemed that there was a serious violation of the procedure, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful since it violated the principle of prohibition of reinvestigation under Article 81-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.