Administrative litigation without going through the previous trial procedure is illegal.

The procedure of the previous trial of a request for adjudgment, etc. shall be completed within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known, and the administrative litigation filed without going through such legitimate procedure shall be deemed unlawful.

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Gux

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

August 26, 2011

September 9, 2011

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,826,650 and KRW 41,950 and KRW 41,950,590 for the first year of 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 12, 201, respectively, and the imposition of KRW 1,365,530 for the year of 2009 for the business as of January 7, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a shareholder and the representative director who owned 91% of the shares of Bochip Motor Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Schip Co., Ltd."). On April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the closure of business.

B. Although the Defendant imposed the value-added tax of KRW 1,745,620 and KRW 46,09,560 (payment period: September 30, 2009) on the non-party company in 209, the Defendant was in arrears. On August 12, 2010, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the non-party company of KRW 1,826,650 among the value-added tax of KRW 1,826,650 and KRW 41,950,590 among the value-added tax of KRW 1,826,650 in arrears on August 12, 201, and notified the Plaintiff at the same time, and the above notice was served on the Plaintiff on August 16, 2010.

C. In addition, when the defendant imposed corporate tax of 1.456.900 on the non-party company for the business year 2009 (the payment deadline: December 31, 2010), the defendant, on January 7, 2011, designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer and notified the plaintiff at the same time. The above payment notice was served on the plaintiff on January 13, 201 (the above payment notice referred to as "each disposition of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition: The absence of dispute, the entry in each of subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the evidence of subparagraphs 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On February 19, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to transfer the non-party company’s investment shares of KRW 2500,000 to the non-party company in KRW 25,00,000, to the non-party company. The Plaintiff sold the non-party company’s shares of KRW 200,000 to the non-party company to the non-party company, and the Defendant’s disposition that reported otherwise is unlawful even if it is no non-party company’s oligopolistic shareholder.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed without going through the procedure of the previous trial.

B. Determination

According to Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person whose rights or interests have been infringed by this Act or other tax-related Acts due to an illegal or unreasonable disposition or a failure to receive a necessary disposition may request the cancellation or modification of such disposition or a necessary disposition. In order to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unlike the voluntary transfer principle of administrative appeals applicable to general administrative litigation, a prior trial procedure, such as a request for examination or adjudgment, under Articles 55(1), 56(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, must be conducted within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which he/she becomes aware of such disposition, and an administrative litigation filed without such legitimate prior trial procedure

According to the above evidence, even if the Plaintiff knew of each of the dispositions in this case on January 13, 201, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff did not make a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes until 190 days have passed since the lawsuit in this case is inappropriate and without going through a prior trial procedure prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits was justified (the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance seeking revocation of each of the dispositions in this case on January 24, 2011, and received a reply from the Defendant that it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance. On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a notification with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service seeking revocation of the disposition of value-added tax imposition. Even if the filing of the above civil petition for grievance and the submission of the above notification are deemed to have been an objection and request for review, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s submission of each of the above notification to the Defendant of value-added tax was unlawful on August 16, 2016, 201.

5. Conclusion

Thus, all of the lawsuits of this case are unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.