early 2012 Heavy021, 20103.28

A request for a trial filed by a court for a lapse of 90 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the disposition

The plaintiff appears to have known that the disposition of this case was taken around February 2, 2008 when the notice was served, and even if the notice was paid on August 10, 2010, it appears that the disposition of this case was clearly known that the disposition of this case was taken on August 10, 2010. Thus, the request for a trial filed after the lapse of 90 days from that date is illegal as filed.

2012Guhap1797 Global income, invalidation of disposition, etc.

United StatesA

Head of the Office of Government

September 25, 2012

November 6, 2012

1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

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

The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the disposition by the defendant against the plaintiff on February 1, 2008 is invalid.

Preliminary claim: The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was registered from August 13, 2004 to November 10, 2004 as the only director on the corporate register of Daehan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D Goods”) located in the OOdong 000 in Silti City, and as the only director on the corporate register of D Goods.

B. The defendant is notified by the director of the Si interesting Tax Office of the assessment data for recognition of D logistics, and 208.

2. 1. During the above period, the Plaintiff, which was the only director of D Logistics, imposed global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on March 28, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which the notice of the instant disposition was served.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not receive a tax notice regarding the disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case"), and the disposition of this case is null and void.

B. Determination

According to Article 14 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, the delivery of a written notification, and the delivery of a written notification shall be made by mail, delivery, or information and communications network use, but the address, residence, place of business, office, or e-mail address of the person to be served with the document. On the other hand, where a postal item is sent by means of registration, barring special circumstances such as return, it shall be deemed that it was delivered to the addressee at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1498, Jan. 15, 1980; 2000Da2052, Oct. 27, 200). The following circumstances acknowledged as a whole as follows, and the Defendant did not lawfully present the Plaintiff’s notice on February 1, 2008 on the premise that it was delivered with the registered mail, which is the Plaintiff’s domicile, and that it was not delivered with the Plaintiff’s notice under the premise that it was not delivered with the notice.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The defendant's main defense

The plaintiff's preliminary claim, while the plaintiff is not the actual operator of D logistics, and the privateF, the actual operator of D logistics, merely belongs to the plaintiff and placed the plaintiff as the only director of D logistics, and thus the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally, and as regards this, the defendant's preliminary claim is illegal because it did not go through legitimate whole island procedure.

B. Determination

Administrative litigation seeking the revocation of tax disposition must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and if so, a request for adjudgment must meet the lawful requirements. Thus, if the request for adjudgment, etc. has been filed after the lapse of the request period, it cannot be deemed that it has gone through the complete procedure prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. According to the health class, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the notice in this case was served on the Plaintiff on February 2008, and the evidence Nos. 5 and 6-1 through 4, it is obvious that the global income tax was in arrears, and the Defendant was seized the savings account and insurance money owned by the Plaintiff on June 9, 2009 and July 12, 2010, and that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection, and it is obvious that the Plaintiff made the request for adjudgment on August 10, 2010, which was made on the first 201.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.