Seocho 2014west 1382 (Law No. 16, 2014)

Since it is improper to go through the procedure of the previous trial, it shall be dismissed.

Since no objection is raised until 90 days after the time limit for the appeal, the appeal is filed after the lapse of the above time limit, the appeal with the lapse of the time limit for filing the appeal is unlawful and eventually, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful since the appeal of this case is also filed without the lawful procedure of the previous trial.

2014Guhap52169 Action on the case on which retirement income is taxed as earned income

IsaA

Director of the District Office

October 7, 2014

October 21, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on April 19, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 15, 2006 to February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff served in BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On February 15, 2011, the non-party company paid retirement allowances to the Plaintiff, together with the OOO (hereinafter referred to as “instant issues”) under the pretext of compensation for the recommended resignation, and the instant issues amount deemed as constituting earned income and thus, reported and paid labor income tax.

C. On February 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the instant key amount would be changed from earned income to retirement income. However, on April 19, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the instant key amount constituted an earned income as a bonus for the recommended resignation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the instant disposition was served on the Plaintiff on April 25, 2013.

D. On February 8, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “instant petition for adjudication”). On April 16, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for adjudication on the grounds that the petition for adjudication was filed after the lapse of the 90-day period for filing the petition for adjudication.

E. On February 10, 2014, after filing the instant appeal, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

As to the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground that the amount of the issue of this case falls under retirement income, the defendant did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedures, and thus, it is unlawful. According to Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a lawsuit is filed against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts, a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes must undergo the pre-trial procedure, and in such case, the request for examination or adjudgment must comply with the request period, and where the request for examination or adjudgment is illegal due to the lapse of the request period, administrative litigation shall also be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). Meanwhile, according to Articles 61 (1) and 68 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (the date of receipt of a notice of

According to the above facts, the instant petition for adjudication was filed on February 8, 2014, which was after the lapse of 90 days from April 25, 2013 after the Plaintiff received the instant written disposition, and thus, it is inappropriate due to the lapse of the period for request. As long as the instant petition for adjudication was inappropriate due to the failure to comply with the period for request, the instant lawsuit is also unlawful since it did not go through a legitimate procedure for a prior trial.

As to this, the plaintiff argued to the effect that, because the defendant did not notify that he should file a request for a trial within 90 days in the dispositions of this case, the defect that did not go through a legitimate pre-trial procedure is cured. However, if a claimant is unable to file a request for a trial within the above period due to a cause stipulated in Article 6 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as a disaster or disease, he/she may file a request for a trial within 14 days from the date on which such cause ceases to exist (Articles 81 and 61(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), but

3. Conclusion

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