It is improper to file a lawsuit without going through the procedure of the previous trial.

It is illegal a lawsuit that has not gone through the procedure of the previous trial.

2014Guhap71351 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA Corporation

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

A litigation performer Park Jae-ju

May 15, 2015

June 5, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Defendant’s value-added tax for the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 KRW 34,300,160 and KRW 2,00 for the first time of 2012.

- 2-

The imposition disposition of the value-added tax to be vested shall be revoked in the aggregate of KRW 89,889,680,000,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) was established on February 23, 2012 and engaged in household appliances, communications equipment, and parts sales business; (b) issued sales tax invoices of KRW 2,529,97,760, total value at the time of filing the return of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 and the second period of 2012,529,97,760, on P P P P P PP, and reported that the purchase tax invoices of KRW 2,419,116,79, total value of supply was received from P PP Co., Ltd.

B. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant issued or received each of the instant tax invoices without a real transaction, and received tax invoices different from the fact. On November 1, 201, 2012, the Defendant issued or notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the total of KRW 89,889,840 in value-added tax amounting to KRW 34,30,160, and value-added tax amounting to KRW 55,589,680 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on December 2, 2013, but withdrawn the appeal on January 6, 2014. After which the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal (hereinafter “instant request for adjudication”) on July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the request for adjudication was expired on October 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

- 3-

1) As Defendant Plaintiff did not undergo a lawful request for examination or adjudication on the instant disposition, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2) Plaintiff

The plaintiff, upon the threat of the employee belonging to the defendant, voluntarily withdrawn an objection and filed a petition for adjudication due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, and submitted a written withdrawal of the objection by facsimile, which is not an original, so it cannot be deemed that the withdrawal has become effective

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that any administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon. In such a case, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful. Thus, if a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to its lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, etc., it shall not be deemed that such request for examination or

However, Article 68(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a request for a trial shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is known, but if an objection is filed, within 90 days from the date on which the decision on the objection is notified. According to the above facts of recognition, it is apparent that the plaintiff did not file the request of this case within 90 days from the date on which the notice on the disposition of this case was received, and the request of this case is unlawful and it is not filed after the lapse of

- 4- The defendant's main defense is reasonable.

2) On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's assertion that he withdrawn an objection due to threat to the employee belonging to the defendant is without merit. In addition, the national tax examiner's non-processing rules do not separately stipulate the method of filing an objection or the method of withdrawing an objection, and Article 8 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides that "the application for matters related to civil petitions may be made in writing by means of an information and communications network, such as oral or telephone, telegraph, facsimile, etc. In cases prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a civil petition which does not require proof in writing by the civil petitioner's expression of intent may be filed orally or by telephone, and a civil petition which does not need to be directly present and expressed by the civil petitioner or the delegated person may be filed by mail, telegraph, facsimile, Internet, etc.

3. Conclusion

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