Notice of non-payment of value-added tax is a collection disposition of the determined tax, not a taxation subject to revocation lawsuit.

Each disposition of this case is intended to collect the amount of tax determined by the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax, and it is merely merely a claim or order for the performance of tax obligations and cannot be deemed a taxation subject to revocation lawsuit. Thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of each disposition of this case is unlawful.

Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 10-2 of Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act

2011Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax, 10264

KimA

Head of Si Tax Office

August 24, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2009 as of March 8, 2010, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2010 as of September 7, 2010, value-added tax for the second term portion of 2010 as of March 8, 201, and value-added tax for the second term portion of 2010 as of March 8, 201, and value-added tax for the first term portion of 200 won for the first term portion of 201 as of June 7, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 10, 2009 to March 31, 201, the Plaintiff is registered as a person who is engaged in food business under the trade name of “BB’s Absed (registration number: 000, hereinafter referred to as “instant business place”)” at the OB No. 000 O-dong from Sinri-si, Sinri-si from March 31, 201.

B. On January 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base and amount of value-added tax for the second term portion (hereinafter “value-added tax return”) on the second term portion in 2009, and filed a return on the first term portion in 2010 on July 26, 201, and the second term value-added tax return for the second term portion in 2010 on January 25, 201, and the first term portion in 2010 on April 25, 201, respectively, but did not pay the relevant value-added tax.

C. Without revising each of the above reports, the Defendant issued each payment notice (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) to the Plaintiff on March 8, 2010, according to the content of each of the above reports, the value-added tax for the second term of 2009, value-added tax for the first term of 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 200, and value-added tax for the second term of 2010, and value-added tax for the second term of 2010 on March 8, 2011, and value-added tax for the first term of 200 on June 7, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of each of the above dispositions is not a tax assessment subject to appeal litigation because it is merely an authorized number of the taxes for which each of the above dispositions has already become final and conclusive, and it does not constitute a tax assessment subject to appeal litigation.

B. Determination

(1) According to Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and value-added taxes are taxes for which the taxpayer files a return on the tax base and amount of tax, and for which the taxpayer is obligated to pay the tax amount with the return, with the determination of the tax base and amount of tax. Therefore, the taxpayer’s notification that the taxpayer should pay the same tax amount as the reported tax amount without any correction is merely a collection disposition for the final tax collection, and cannot be deemed as a taxation subject to the revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004). The health stand in the instant case, and the Plaintiff filed a return on the taxable period from February 2, 2009 to January 1, 201, which was not subject to value-added tax, and the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of the tax amount under the above tax return to the Plaintiff without any correction of the above reported tax amount.

(2) Article 5(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that any right or interest may be infringed upon by a disposition made pursuant to the above Act or other tax-related Acts. It shall be prohibited from filing an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition provided for in Article 56(2) through 55 without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act. Further, according to Article 61(1) and Article 68(1) of the same Act, the above request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the date when the pertinent disposition becomes known (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt). Administrative litigation against the above disposition shall be interpreted as having to go through the examination or adjudication procedure, and administrative litigation against the plaintiff 2 shall be deemed to have been delivered without going through the aforementioned request for examination or adjudgment, and it shall be deemed to have been unlawful for the plaintiff 1 to have been delivered without going through 70 days before the due date for delivery of the notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do18620, Jul. 23, 1986.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.