[1] Whether an administrative litigation may be initiated without going through the next step prior to the filing of a legitimate objection where the period for decision expires without receiving any notice of decision (negative)

[2] The case holding that the submission of materials for explanation of transfer income tax submitted by the taxpayer who was notified of taxation is an objection under Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[3] Whether a disposition imposing capital gains tax on a person who is merely a title trustee under the registry is void as a matter of course (negative)

[1] According to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a disposition under tax-related Acts cannot, in principle, be brought without going through the two-stage pre-trial procedure, such as a request for examination and a request for trial under the same Act. Thus, in a case where the period for decision expires without being notified of any decision even though a legitimate objection was filed, if the period for decision expires without being notified of the decision pursuant to Article 61(2) of the same Act, it is possible to bring an action through the next stage of the request for examination and a request for trial, and it is not possible to immediately

[2] The case holding that if it is evident that the submission of explanatory data submitted by the taxpayer contains the purport of objection against the tax authority to revoke the taxation disposition, even if the written objection under Articles 54 (1) and 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes differs from its name and form, the submission of such document shall be deemed as an objection under Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[3] Even if a person subject to a disposition of capital gains tax is only a title trustee, not a real owner of the transferred land, the title of ownership on the registry of the land at the time of the transfer was made in the future of the title trustee, and the registration was not recorded in the title trust relationship, barring any special circumstance, the tax authority merely a third party shall believe the registration of ownership transfer of the above land and make a disposition of tax accordingly. Thus, even if the said disposition was imposed on a person who is only a title trustee on the registry, the defect cannot be deemed as serious and obvious. Therefore, the argument that the said disposition of tax is void

[1] Articles 55(1) and (2), 56(2), and 61(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 18 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 66(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 50(1) and 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [3] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu219 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1159), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12026 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3023) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu540 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3146), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12190 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3116) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 70Nu150 delivered on December 23, 197 (Nomen30-305) and Supreme Court Decision 90Da29191 delivered on January 11, 1991

Plaintiff

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu11939 delivered on July 24, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim

According to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a disposition under tax-related Acts cannot, in principle, be brought without going through a two-stage prior trial procedure, including a request for examination and a request for trial under the same Act. Thus, in a case where the period for decision expires without being notified of any decision even though a legitimate objection was filed, it is possible to bring an action via a request for examination and a request for trial at the next stage even before being notified of the decision pursuant to Article 61(2) of the same Act, and it is not possible to bring an action immediately without going through such prior trial procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12026, Sept. 6, 196).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was notified of the taxation disposition of this case as of December 16, 1995 and submitted the explanation of the explanation of the transfer income tax to the defendant on January 5, 1996. The court below held that such facts alone did not go through the transfer procedure under Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. If it is evident that the above explanation of the explanation of transfer income tax submitted by the plaintiff contain the purport of objection seeking cancellation of the taxation disposition of this case against the defendant who is the tax authority, it is reasonable to view the submission of the document as an objection under Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes even if it differs from the written objection under Articles 54 (1) and 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu540, Oct. 28, 1986). However, according to the records, the plaintiff did not lead to the request for examination and request for adjudication, and therefore, the court below's decision is justified.

As to the Grounds of Appeal on Preliminary Claim

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as alleged by the plaintiff, since the actual owner of the land of this case is the non-party and the plaintiff is merely the title trustee, and the title trust relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party was not registered in the registry at the time of transfer, the defendant, who is only a third party, is bound to believe the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff as to the land of this case and to impose tax accordingly, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, even if the tax disposition of this case imposes capital gains tax on the plaintiff who is merely a title trustee on the registry, the defect cannot be deemed to be serious and clear, so the plaintiff's assertion that the tax disposition of this case is null and void is without merit. It is just in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation, such as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)