Whether a new trial procedure has gone through legitimate procedure of the previous trial

After raising an objection against the disposition of this case, the request for examination against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal for the adjudgment, shall not be accompanied by the objection procedure against the decision of objection of this case to the Board of Audit and Inspection.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Relation to Other Acts)

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of refusal to correct or reject capital gains tax against the plaintiff on March 3, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 12, 1965, 1965, ○○○○-gu, ○○○○○○○○○, 1,435 square meters prior to ○○4, and 522 square meters prior to ○4-○○○ (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff transferred the instant land to ○○○ on July 20, 2005, and the Defendant imposed KRW 122,336,000 on the Plaintiff on November 4, 2005.

B. On January 27, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction against the Defendant for reduction of and exemption from the capital gains tax by asserting that the land in this case was “self-owned for not less than eight years” and constitutes reduction and exemption from the capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. On March 3, 2006, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the above eight-year self-sufficiency and residency requirements for the land in this case.

C. After that, the plaintiff appealed against the disposition of this case, and filed an objection against the defendant on May 1, 2006, and the defendant decided on July 27, 2006 that the land of this case does not fall under the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, but that part of the plaintiff's objection is accepted on the ground that it is reasonable to reorganize the transfer margin of the land of this case based on the actual transaction price ("the objection decision of this case").

D. The plaintiff is again dissatisfied with the decision of objection of this case and filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection on October 17, 2006. However, according to the request for review submitted by the plaintiff on November 15, 2006, the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection (the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection) decided to dismiss the plaintiff's objection. In light of the fact that Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes separates the procedure for objection and the Board of Audit and Inspection under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the procedure for objection is in accordance with the procedure for objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the decision of dismissal as to the tax-related disposition is one of the procedure for objection under the procedure for objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and is not included in the "disposition or other act concerning the duties of the person subject to audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection" under Article 46 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Article 6 (1) 1 of the Rules on Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] No dispute or obvious facts in record, A1, 2, B 1, 3, 4

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it does not go through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

Article 55 (1), (3), (6) through (9), Article 56 (2) through (5), Article 61 (1) and (2), Article 62 (1), Article 66 (1) and (6), Articles 68, 69 (1), Articles 43 (1), 44, and 46-2 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and Article 10 of the Rules on Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection (attached Documents) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be comprehensively examined as to the method of dissatisfied with the disposition of national taxes, such as income tax, within 90 days from the date when the first disposition is known (the date when a notice of disposition is received) or the director of the competent tax office who has made the relevant disposition, and within 90 days from the date when the request for examination or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal receives a notice of determination on the request for adjudgment within 90 days from the date when the request for examination or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal receives a notice of determination on the request for adjudgment.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without undergoing the procedure of objection to the decision of objection of this case against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal on October 17, 2006, within 90 days from the date of receiving the decision of objection of this case from July 27, 2006, without undergoing a request for examination against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal for review against the decision of objection of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it did not go through the procedure of the previous trial, and the defendant's assertion pointing

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.