Suwon District Court 2013Guhap766 ( November 27, 2013)

early 2012 Middle 3267 ( October 18, 2012)

period of filing a lawsuit is calculated from the date of a subsequent disposition following the review decision.

Since it is reasonable to view that the appeal period following the re-audit decision shall be calculated from the date of receipt of the notification of the subsequent disposition, the lawsuit in this case is inappropriate as it exceeds

Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Nu900 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

United StatesA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap766 Decided November 27, 2013

September 2, 2014

September 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of OOO(including additional OOOO(including additional tax) on October 10, 2007 against the plaintiff on June 15, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows, except where " March 26, 2012, which is March 2012, 2012, which is March 30, 2012, of the third 9 lines of the judgment of the court of first instance" is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the judgment on this part is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the

A. The defendant's assertion

"The defendant, within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notification of the subsequent disposition in accordance with the review decision by the Tax Tribunal, asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the intention to do so."

The plaintiff, although the director of the tax office determined that the initial disposition was decided as a follow-up disposition according to the reinvestigation decision, the plaintiff was not notified of the results of the disposition, and even if the plaintiff was notified of the results of the disposition by the director of the tax office, the director of the tax office of Namcheon cannot notify the results of the disposition in this case because the plaintiff was not the disposition in this case, and the defendant cannot be notified of the results of the disposition in this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the notification of the results of the disposition in this case.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

"Re-audit decision that requires the disposition authority to re-examine all or part of a single taxation unit and correct the tax base and tax amount or maintain the initial disposition according to the results of re-audit of the disposition." This decision constitutes a modified decision that leads to the disposition authority's intent to take part of the subsequent disposition of the disposition, such as filing an objection, a request for review, or a request for adjudgment (hereinafter referred to as "written objection, etc."). Such re-audit decision takes effect as a result of supplementation of the disposition by the disposition authority. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the period of objection according to the re-audit decision is calculated as from the date of receipt of the subsequent disposition (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du070 delivered on June 25, 2010). The plaintiff is not deemed to have received notification of the results of re-audit of the above disposition by the said 207Du270 delivered on the date of receipt of notice of the results of re-audit (see Supreme Court Decision 207Du17406 delivered on June 27, 2019).

(3) Determination as to the legitimacy of the notice of the results of reinvestigation conducted by the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office

The decision of the Tax Tribunal on the re-audit, the results of the re-audit, and the notification of the results of the re-audit are merely the sharing of roles within the National Tax Service on the allocation or delegation of authority among the tax authorities. Furthermore, the notification of the result of the re-audit sent to the Plaintiff by the Director of the Tax Tribunal is specified by the Tax Tribunal which served as the basis of the investigation.

In addition, it is written that the first disposition of the party to which the measures are taken is written, and since such notice is a subsequent disposition in accordance with the decision to appeal, it is possible to institute an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date on which the notice is received, as long as the content on the method of appeal is specified (this document No. 4), the notice of the result of reinvestigation is lawful, and therefore, the first plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit."

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of 90 days from March 30, 2012, which was notified of the result of re-audit by the director of the tax office in South Korea, under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the instant lawsuit is inappropriate in terms of the filing period, and the Plaintiff again filed a request with the Tax Tribunal, and even if the Plaintiff received a decision on the merits from the Tax Tribunal, it does not change the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part.

(5) Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.