Whether it is possible to file a lawsuit to revoke the revocation of the license for alcoholic beverage wholesale business without legitimate pre-trial procedures

In accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes, it shall be dismissed as an administrative litigation filed without going through legitimate pre-trial procedures after the decision to dismiss the petition.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of the comprehensive wholesale business license against the plaintiff on June 21, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1-2, 3, 12-2, 11-2, 23-1 and 5-23-2.

가. 원고는 2003. 10. 21. 피고로부터 종합주류도매업면허를 받고 그 시경부터 ΟΟ시 Ο동 ΟΟΟ-Ο번지에서 'ΟΟΟΟΟΟ'라는 상호로 주류도매업을 영위해 왔다.

나. 피고는 2005. 3. 4.부터 2005. 4. 30.까지 사이에 'ΟΟΟΟΟΟ'에 대하여 주류유통 추적조사를 실시한 결과 2004년 1기분 부가가치세 과세기간 중 실물거래 없이 허위로 세금계산서를 발행한 금액이 합계 142,091,312원으로서 총주류매출액 810,117,093원의 35.1%에 이르는 것을 밝혀내어, 원고에 대하여 2005. 6. 21. 주세법 제15조 제2항 제4호 소정의 "부가가치세법에 의한 과세기간별 세금계산서 교부의무 위반금액이 총주류매출금액의 100분의 10 이상인 때"에 해당한다는 이유로 원고의 종합주류도매업면허를 취소하는 처분(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다)을 하였고, 이어서 2005. 7. 13. 2004년 1기분 부가가치세를 5,735,700원으로 경정하는 처분(이하 '부가가치세 경정처분'이라 한다)을 하였다.

C. On June 23, 2005, the plaintiff served the notice of disposition of this case on July 13, 2005, each notice of disposition of disposition of disposition of value-added tax correction, and on October 4, 2005, the National Tax Tribunal filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal for cancellation of disposition of this case and disposition of value-added tax correction. On July 5, 2006, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the period of request under Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has expired, and on the appeal for disposition of disposition of disposition of value-added tax correction, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that such disposition is justifiable.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. (1) Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Any person whose rights or interests are infringed by this Act or any other disposition under tax-related Acts, which is illegal or unreasonable, or by failing to be subject to the necessary disposition, may file a request for examination or adjudgment pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter to cancel or modify such disposition, or for a necessary disposition." Article 56(1) main sentence and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act shall not apply to any disposition prescribed in Article 55." Article 55 provides that " Notwithstanding the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18(1), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, administrative litigation against any illegal disposition 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 "any request for a trial shall be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received,

(2) According to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, in order to institute an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case under the Liquor Tax Act, the plaintiff must first undergo the pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as a request for examination or a request for trial, etc., and the above request for examination or a request for trial as a procedure for the pre-trial trial shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of disposition. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal on June 23, 2005 for a trial on the ground that 90 days have passed from the date of receipt of the notice of disposition of this case on Oct. 4, 2005, but it received a decision of rejection on the ground of arrival from the National Tax Tribunal on July 5, 2006, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed

B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit is lawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not notify whether the Defendant could file an administrative appeal while rendering the instant disposition, the period of objection, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed liable for the lapse of the period of request.

On the other hand, Article 42 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "where an administrative agency makes a disposition in writing, it shall notify the other party of whether it is possible to file an administrative appeal with respect to the disposition, and the procedure and period for filing an appeal shall be notified of the other party." In the case of this case, whether the defendant is able to file an administrative appeal with the plaintiff while rendering the disposition in this case, or the fact that the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of whether it is able to file an administrative appeal or the period for filing an appeal, etc. does not conflict between the parties, but Article 56 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the disposition provided for in Article 55 shall not be governed by the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act." Thus, while rendering the disposition in this case as provided for in Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(2) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case, which is a revocation lawsuit against the disposition of this case, is premised on the revocation lawsuit against the disposition of this case. In the disposition of this case, if the period of appeal is notified and the period of appeal is not notified in the disposition of this case, in light of equity, the period of appeal against the disposition of this case should be calculated from the date of notification of the disposition of value-added tax correction or from the date of actually being known. However, even if it is not so, as long as an appeal was filed with the National Tax Tribunal as a prior trial procedure against the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case, the lawsuit of this case was lawful.

On the other hand, since the disposition of this case revoking the Plaintiff’s comprehensive wholesale business license and the disposition of correcting value-added tax, which is a tax imposition disposition, are separate separate dispositions independently, the period of appeal against the disposition of this case and the period of appeal against the correction of value-added tax are separate. For the same reason, whether the previous procedure was lawful in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case and the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case, and it should be separately determined according to each disposition. Thus,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.