The disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax is dismissed without going through the pre-trial procedure.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax, but the plaintiff failed to pass a trial or a request for review, which is the basic requirements of administrative litigation, as a defense of safety, and thus, the lawsuit is dismissed.

Relation to other Acts under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Guhap26 Partial revocation of Disposition of Value-Added Tax

IsaA

Head of the High Tax Office

June 17, 2014

July 8, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 16, 2013, the part of the imposition of value-added tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

As to the lawsuit of this case filed by the Plaintiff on October 16, 2013 on the ground that the disposition of imposition by the value-added taxOOOOOO as of October 16, 2013 against the Plaintiff was calculated on the basis of erroneous data, and that the part of the above value-added tax should be imposed unfairly, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful without going through the procedure of pre-trial trial, and thus, pursuant to Articles 56(2), 61(1) and (2), and 68(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if an administrative litigation is filed against the Plaintiff pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts, the procedure of pre-trial, such as a request for examination or adjudgment, as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, must be initiated within 90 days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision on the application for examination or adjudgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a legitimate decision on the disposition of imposition of value-added tax within 90 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it should be deemed a lawful pre-trial procedure following the procedure of filing an objection. However, since an objection under Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is different from a request for examination or adjudication under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff underwent a legitimate pre-trial procedure even if it had undergone the procedure of filing an

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.