National Tax Service Review Corporation 2010-0063 ( October 28, 2011)

Therefore, it is inappropriate without undergoing the necessary pre-trial procedure.

Even though a pre-trial procedure was conducted on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and the disposition of recognition, it cannot be viewed as going through the pre-trial procedure on the disposition of revocation of global income tax by the representative director. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful and dismissed without going through the necessary pre-trial procedure.

2011Guhap1369 global income and revocation of disposition

Chapter AA

○ Head of tax office

May 26, 201

June 16, 201

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 11,452,570 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 27, 2007 to February 24, 2009, the Plaintiff worked as the representative director of ○○○○○○-dong 1000-24, ○○○○-dong, 100-24 (hereinafter referred to as “○○○-dong 100-24”), and transferred ○○○○-dong 2009 to Nonparty lower-A and retired the representative director.

B. The ○○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the seat of ○○○○ Tax Office, in 2008, found out the fact that the sales revenue amount was omitted in KRW 53,068,998, and issued a notice of change in the amount of income at the same time, on May 2, 2010, on the ground that it is unclear that the ownership of the sales revenue omitted in KRW 53,068,998, was attributed to the Plaintiff, a representative director of the company, and notified the Plaintiff of change in the amount of income at the same time. On May 3, 2010, the said company imposed a disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 8,063,30 for the sales revenue amounting to KRW 53,068

C. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing fact from the ○○ Tax Office; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing fact; (c) deemed the aggregate of the above recognized reward amount as global income amount; and (d) imposed global income tax of KRW 11,452,570 on the Plaintiff for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection with ○○ Tax Office (hereinafter “instant request for examination”) on the name of ○○○○○, ○○, and thereafter filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service (hereinafter “1”). The National Tax Service dismissed the instant request for examination on January 28, 201. Around that time, the Plaintiff filed an objection seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition on March 11, 201, but the Plaintiff did not undergo a separate pre-trial procedure for the instant disposition, other than the said request for examination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff did not have undergone an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the disposition of this case, and the petition for review of this case is merely seeking revocation of the disposition of imposing corporate tax on △△△ P, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff had undergone the previous trial procedure subject to the disposition of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case, which did not undergo an administrative appeal, is unlawful

B. Determination

1) Relevant statutes

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative litigation against any illegal disposition, which is a disposition made under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts, shall be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act," and stipulates that an administrative litigation against any disposition related to national taxes shall be

2) We examine the instant case

A) Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff had undergone an administrative appeal, such as a request for examination on the instant disposition, the fact that the Plaintiff did not undergo a separate administrative appeal on the instant disposition in addition to the request for examination, is as seen earlier.

B) Furthermore, as a request for review of the instant disposition, whether the Plaintiff could be deemed to have undergone the pre-trial procedure for the instant disposition through the said request for review.

(1) According to each statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, 'Name No. 1', 'Name No. 1', 'Name No. 1, 'Name No. 1,', 'resident registration number No. 1, 'Name No. 1, 'Name No. 1', 'Name No. 1, 'Name No. 1', 'Name No. 1, 'No. 1', 'No. 1', '○○○○-dong 1, 00-24, 'No. 1,000', 'No. 1,000', 'No. 6, and 7', 'No. 1,000', 'No. 1,000', 'No. 1,000', 'No. 2,000', 'No. 3,000', 'No. 1,000.

(2) In addition, corporate tax and global income tax are entirely different from the tax items, as well as the tax authority and the taxpayer are entirely different, even if corporate income was generated due to non-deductible of losses, such income belongs to the corporation, even if it was reserved or leaked to the corporation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the income belongs to the representative only, and thus, even if it was done through the pre-trial procedure for the disposition imposing corporate tax and the disposition imposing corporate tax, it cannot be deemed that it was conducted through the pre-trial procedure for the disposition revoking the disposition imposing global income tax on the representative director, and it does not constitute a case where the request for review of this case constitutes the pre-trial procedure for the disposition of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4106, Dec. 7, 2006) or that the plaintiff had undergone the pre-trial procedure for the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is deemed to be unlawful since it was filed without going through the necessary pre-trial procedure, and it is so decided as per Disposition.