The lawsuit of this case filed without going through the procedure of the previous trial with the lapse of the time period for filing the lawsuit is unlawful.

The Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax and resident tax on the instant global income tax and resident tax is unlawful as it was filed without going through legitimate appellate procedures, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff filed a request for examination or a request for adjudication seeking revocation thereof within 90 days from the date of receipt of such

Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap2604 Global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

July 11, 2014

July 25, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax OOO and resident tax OOOOOO on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff is the representative ofCC, which is a corporation that runs a franchise business from OO-dong 610-6 to BBB." B. On December 12, 2009, the defendant investigated the tax offenses against the plaintiff and determined the omitted amount of sales ofCC as an OOOO, and on February 1, 2010, notified the Co., Ltd. of the corporate tax for the business year 2007, the OOOO, the corporate tax for the business year 2008, the OOOO, the value-added tax for the first period of 2007, the second period of 2007, the OOOO, the first period of 1, 2008, and the second period of 2008, the OOOOO and the second period of 2008.

C. According to the above results of the tax investigation, the Defendant accused the above company on the ground thatCC omitted sales of OOO members, and the prosecution indicted the company and the Plaintiff on the ground that the OO members lower than the above sales amount was determined as the omitted sales amount on June 8, 2010.

D. On October 26, 2011,CC filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax (SO), and the above court revoked the amount exceeding each corporate tax and value-added tax calculated on the basis of an omission in sales as stated in the criminal crime list of the criminal cases againstCC among the disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax imposed by the Defendant, and revoked the amount exceeding the amount of each corporate tax and value-added tax calculated on September 9, 2012, and revoked the lawsuit on January 29, 2013 on the premise that "CC immediately withdraw the lawsuit in this case." The defendant issued a notice of correction of corporate tax and value-added tax for the business year 2007 and 2008 under the above recommendation of the court on the premise that the omission in sales was an OOO, and that it was based on the premise that the amount of each of the above disposition imposing global income tax and the resident tax was below KRW 700,000,O27,000 for each of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant calculated the sales amount or revenue amount ofCC by mixing it with the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation. The method of the estimated investigation is unreasonable as it is not based on the actual revenue and it is not reasonable. The outcome of the on-site investigation also differs from the actual transaction details. Therefore, the instant tax disposition based on the sales amount calculated is unlawful.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it exceeds the period of filing the lawsuit.

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts shall be filed without filing a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision at the same time." Thus, unlike the discretionary principle of administrative litigation applicable to general administrative litigation, an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a disposition shall be subject to the requisite transfer principle which must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 90NuO, Jun. 25, 191)," and "Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed within 90 days after the date when the relevant disposition becomes known (the date when the notice of disposition is received)". Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff filed a request for examination or a request for adjudgment against the disposition of global income tax and resident tax of this case within 90 days after the date when the relevant disposition is served, and thus, the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of global income tax of this case and resident tax of this case is unlawful."

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.