Chuncheon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-4202 (Law No. 28, 2015)

Early High Court Decision 2015Du4785 ( December 30, 2014)

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it does not perform legitimate pre-trial procedures.

Since a tax appeal was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of disposition, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it does not perform legitimate procedure of prior trial.

Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu849 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAA

○ Head of tax office

Chuncheon District Court 2015Guhap4202 ( October 28, 2015)

2016.08.22

2016.09.26

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs incurred after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On January 14, 2013, the first instance judgment is revoked. In the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 78,136,050 against the Plaintiff on January 14, 2013 is revoked. In the first instance, the Defendant confirms that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 78,136,050 against the Plaintiff is null and void (the Plaintiff added the conjunctive claim at the first instance trial).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that for the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional parts, and thus, this Court’s explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional Judgment - Judgment on the Preliminary Claim

In the first instance, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course, and added a preliminary claim seeking confirmation of invalidity thereof. However, as to the grounds for invalidity of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not clear. However, since the land 688-1 which was the object of the prior disposition and the land 688,688-2 which was the object of the instant disposition is divided into one land and is divided into one land, it is subject to identical legal treatment, and thus, it seems to be significant and apparent to treat otherwise, or not proven that the notice of taxation or the notice of prior notice of taxation was served.

First, the issue of whether each land should be treated together with the land 688 and 688-2 with respect to the assertion of violation of the same obligation to handle the law can be clearly identified in light of the fact-finding data related to all circumstances, and thus, it cannot be said that it is apparent that the instant disposition is void as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the ground that there is a defect as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Then, it is difficult to view that the instant disposition as a procedural defect is a defect to make it invalid as a matter of course, even if the notice of prior taxation was not properly served (the validity requirement) and the notice of prior taxation was not served in the case of prior notice of taxation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the primary claim is justifiable, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial at the trial is also dismissed as there is no reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.