Since the period of filing a lawsuit has expired, it is illegal to do so.

The lawsuit of this case which was filed 90 days after the date on which a written decision on dismissal of the appeal was served is illegal as it was filed after the period for filing the lawsuit expires.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning other Acts

2017Guhap4261 Business Income and Revocation of Disposition

○ ○

00. Head of tax office

April 13, 2018

May 4, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2016, imposing global income tax amounting to KRW 13,603,450 (2,443,730 for the year 2012, and KRW 11,597,720 for the year 2013) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a dental specialist who operates the EE dental clinic located at 00-Gu 000-Gu 000 from December 31, 2009 to March 23, 2016.

B. On August 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to revise the Plaintiff’s global income tax amounting to KRW 13,603,450 (the total amount of KRW 2,43,730 for the year 2012, KRW 11,159,720 for the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 40,762,00 for providing visiting and treating services to inmates in theCC detention center from 2012 to 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted an import declaration on the amount of KRW 7,00 for the year 2012, KRW 33,752,00 for the year 2013 and KRW 11,159,720 for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on January 4, 2017, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 7, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

The Plaintiff received allowances from the SS after treating the medical expenses received by the director of the AD Dental department upon the request of SSS, which entered into a dental service contract with theCC detention center and the dental service contract, and then delivered the medical expenses received to SS, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition imposing comprehensive income tax on the money received from theCC detention center as business income of the Plaintiff is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff did not file the lawsuit of this case within 90 days from the date on which the decision on the request for taxation was notified pursuant to Article 56 (3) of the Framework

B. Determination

1) The main sentence of Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative litigation against a taxation disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or under the tax-related Acts shall be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon, notwithstanding Article 18(1), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act." The main sentence of Article 56(3) of the same Act provides that " Notwithstanding Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation under the main sentence of Article 56(2) shall be filed within 90 days from the date on

2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s objection to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 4, 2017, but the appeal was dismissed, as seen earlier. According to the evidence Nos. 2, the written decision of dismissal can be found to have been served on the BB on September 1, 2017 on the Plaintiff’s address, 11:5, 200-Gu 00-Gu 11 (00 dong, RR building) and 11 (00 dong, R building) as the company’s Dong fee, and thus, the instant lawsuit filed on December 18, 2017, which had been filed after the lapse of the filing period, is unlawful.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that the service of this case was made by his wife residing in another place. However, according to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the document under the tax law provides that the document shall be served to the domicile, residence, place of business, or office of the holder of the title deed. Here, the address refers to the place which serves as the basis of life, and in principle, the reported domicile shall be deemed to be the domicile of the holder of the title deed. However, even if the place is not the registered domicile, if the place was used as the former place of residence after the former place of residence was moved to another place, it shall be deemed to be the domicile of the holder of the title deed. If the person to receive the service was not present at the place of service, the document may be delivered to the clerk, employee, or the person living together, who is man of the title deed, and if the title deed delivered to the resident's family to receive and deliver it to him, the mail shall be deemed to be delegated to the resident of the place of service.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that "CC 00-Gu 000- 111 R building 2 (00)" was stated at the time of a request for a trial against the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have delegated the authority to receive the decision of this case to children BB or other family members residing in the above building, and as long as BB was served with the written decision of this case on September 11, 2017, the decision of this case was legally delivered to the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.