In the absence of legitimate procedure for a prior trial, it is dismissed.

The plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which he became aware of the disposition of this case, and cannot be deemed to have lawfully gone through the necessary transfer procedure under the Framework Act

2013Guhap1562 global income and revocation of disposition

JAA

Head of Public Tax Office

August 28, 2013

September 25, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOOO for the Plaintiff on May 1, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) lent the OOOO's interest at 4% of the monthly interest; (b) the due date on October 10, 2007, and (c) deducted the OOO's interest (hereinafter referred to as "OO's interest"); and (d) completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the land of OOO-O-O and two parcels as collateral for the above loan, OO-O-O-O, and the ownership transfer registration was completed; (e) voluntary auction was conducted at the request of DD Cooperatives, a senior creditor of the above secured real estate, and was paid the OO's dividend on March 11, 2009 at the auction procedure.

B. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff omitted the interest at the time of filing the global income tax return in 2007; and (b) received the instant disposition on May 9, 2012 from the Plaintiff on the ground that the said interest income was included in the Plaintiff’s total amount of income; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the OOO of the global income tax reverted to the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 9, 2012, but was dismissed on February 12, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. Defendant’s defense

On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition and knew of the fact of the instant disposition, and thereafter, filed an appeal on August 9, 2012 after the lapse of 90 days from the date of service, and filed an appeal on August 9, 2012. The instant lawsuit is unlawful, since it did not go through lawful pre-trial procedures.

B. Determination

According to Articles 56(2) and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation on the disposition of national taxes may not be instituted without lawful procedure for a request for examination or a request for trial, etc. In such cases, if the request for examination or a request for adjudgment is unlawful due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, etc., it cannot be deemed that the necessary procedures under the Framework

On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was served with the written disposition of this case. However, a request for a trial filed with the Tax Tribunal on August 9, 2012, 2012, which had passed 90 days from the date on which the period for the request for a trial was served, was unlawful, since the period for the request was exceeded, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it does not lawfully go through the necessary transfer procedure. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.