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

If an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of national tax assessment is illegal due to the application of the necessary principle of transfer under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the period for filing a petition for review or adjudgment exceeds the period for filing a lawsuit, it shall not be deemed that the administrative litigation has undergone the necessary transfer procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it shall not be deemed unlawful.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap9496 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

lightAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 19, 2013

September 6, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The imposition of the gift tax that the Defendant notified to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2012 shall be revoked.

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Any administrative litigation against any disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be filed without filing a request for examination or adjudgment and making a decision thereon," and any administrative litigation that seeks the cancellation of any disposition by national tax shall, unlike the discretionary principle of administrative litigation that applies to general administrative litigation, be subject to a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and where such request for examination or adjudgment is lawful. Thus, if a request for examination or adjudgment is illegal due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, it cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). Meanwhile, according to Articles 61 (1) and 68 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, any request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date on which such notice is received) on which the relevant disposition is known.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers), and the plaintiff is deemed to have filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on Sep. 10, 2012, 2012 after the lapse of 90 days from being served with a notice of payment of the disposition stated in the purport of the claim on June 7, 2012. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it did not go through legitimate

In addition, according to Article 56 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, administrative litigation against illegal dispositions under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax laws shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified, and according to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff's above decision of the Tax Tribunal is recognized as the time being served on December 24, 2012 by the Tax Tribunal, and it is apparent that the lawsuit in this case was filed on April 3, 2013, which is 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is deemed to be one of the arguments of this case, it shall be accepted prior to the merits of the defendant pointing this out, and it shall be dismissed as per Disposition.