The lawsuit of this case without a legitimate pre-trial procedure is dismissed as unlawful.

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not request a trial to the Tax Tribunal within 90 days after the notice of each disposition of this case was served.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Guhap10343 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

】 】

○ Head of tax office

March 21, 2018

April 4, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,278,266 on November 24, 2016 and value-added tax of KRW 22,37,570 on December 23, 2016 shall be revoked by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on November 24, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 5, 2015, aa metal (hereinafter referred to as “a metal”) that the Plaintiff served as a representative director was established on and after June 5, 2015, and was closed on September 30, 2016. B. A metal was delinquent in the amount of value-added tax 8,278,266, and value-added tax 22,377,570 that was determined on January 2016.

C. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of value-added tax of KRW 8,278,266, value-added tax of KRW 22,377,577, and value-added tax of November 28, 2016, which was determined on November 29, 2016, to the Plaintiff as a secondary taxpayer for the amount of delinquent tax and to pay the amount in arrears of KRW 15,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,

D. On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on October 11, 2017 on the grounds that the period for request under Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes has expired. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not have any dispute, Gap’s 5 through 9 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings. 2. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

As the Plaintiff did not file a request for examination or a request for trial within 90 days from the date of receipt of the instant notice of payment, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it did not meet the requirements for an administrative appeal.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 55 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any person whose rights or interests have been infringed by an illegal or unreasonable disposition or by failing to receive a necessary disposition as a disposition under this Act or other tax-related Acts may file a request for examination or adjudgment under this Chapter to cancel or modify such disposition, or for a necessary disposition." Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18 (1) (main sentence), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, any administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon." Article 68 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an appeal shall be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, from the date of its receipt) on which he becomes aware of such disposition"

In order to file an administrative suit seeking the cancellation of each of the dispositions in this case, the Plaintiff must first undergo the pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and any request for examination or adjudication as a procedure for the pre-trial trial must be lawful. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication or adjudication as a procedure for the pre-trial trial on November 28, 2016, and November 29, 2016, even if the notice of each disposition in this case was served on the Plaintiff on November 28, 2016, 90 days have passed from the receipt of the notice of each disposition in this case, and the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on June 9, 2017, but received a decision to dismiss it on the ground that the period of request for adjudication by the Tax Tribunal was expired on October 11, 2017, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it and it is so decided as per Disposition.