Where the relevant request for adjudication, etc. is dismissed as a procedure for the preceding trial, an administrative litigation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the decision is notified.

Since the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the arrival date of the judgment decision is apparent, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax among the instant lawsuit is inappropriate without going through a prior trial proceeding, and the part seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax is unlawful as it was filed after the filing period expired

Article 56 of the national technique

2013Guhap3390 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

IsaA

AA Head of the Tax Office

December 20, 2013

on January 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) on August 6, 2012 against the Plaintiff in 2010 and the imposition of KRW 000 on income tax of March 4, 2013, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is running a scrap metal business with a trade name from 00:00 to 00:0.

B. As a result of the investigation of a tax offense against 00 scrap, the head of a tax office confirmed that the said 00 scrap metal traded in the manner of paying the scrap metal to the purchaser of the non-data using several borrowed accounts, and paid 000 won in total through the issuance of 00 checks and the ten account transfer during the period from August 31, 2010 to December 27, 2010, and notified the Plaintiff of an excessive taxation data for omitting the Plaintiff’s non-data sales, deeming that the 00 scrap metal purchased non-data from the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, on August 6, 2012, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff omitted a report on sales of the said KRW 000 and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax (additional tax 000) in 2010.

D. On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against it, but was dismissed on January 20, 2013, and the said decision of dismissal reached the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013.

E. In addition, on March 5, 2013, the Defendant omitted the sales amount from the Plaintiff’s non-data transaction from the Plaintiff.

For this reason, 00 won of global income tax for 2010 was corrected and notified.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

00 won paid by the Plaintiff from 00 irons is due to monetary tea and exchange between the Plaintiff’s former wife and the Plaintiff’s former wife, and thus, money that is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s sales of non-data sales. Thus, the disposition imposing value-added tax and global income tax is unlawful.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

The defendant did not go through the pre-trial procedure prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, or the period of filing the lawsuit.

B Doing this argument that it is unlawful.

According to the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 56(2) and (3), and Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in case where a request for a trial or a request for examination as a procedure of the previous trial is dismissed after the request for a trial or a request for examination is made, an administrative litigation shall be instituted within 90 days after the notification of the decision.

The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff that did not undergo the pre-trial procedure regarding the disposition imposing global income tax, and the decision of dismissal by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 20, 2013 regarding the disposition imposing global income tax of this case reaches the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013, as seen earlier. As such, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 24, 2013 after the lapse of 90 days from the date of arrival of the above decision of dismissal is apparent in the record, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case is inappropriate without undergoing the pre-trial procedure, and the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case is unlawful since the filing period was filed after the lapse

3. Conclusion

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

section 3.