Suwon District Court 2012Guhap5580 ( November 16, 2012)

illegal request without going through the preceding trial procedure, such as a request for examination or adjudgment;

(as in the judgment of the court of first instance) 90 days have passed since the date on which a notice of tax payment was served was not requested for the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax or for the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax. Thus, this lawsuit was filed without due process of the preceding trial and is

2012Nu3786 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

KimAAAA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap580 Decided November 16, 2012

May 29, 2013

June 19, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on February 6, 2012, which belongs to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012 by the head of Sung-nam District Tax Office and the imposition of KRW 000 on the local income tax of KRW 00 on February 6, 2012, which the head of Sung-nam District District District Office rendered to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provide that the decision on the plaintiff's assertion is added in a multi-Eup.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is harsh to allow the Plaintiff to go through the pre-assessment procedure when taking into account the fact that the procedures to substantially object to the pre-announcement notice should be deemed to have gone through the appeal procedure regarding the instant global income tax imposition disposition, which is conducted thereafter. According to the entry in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and that the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with respect to the pre-assessment notice prior to the instant global income tax imposition disposition on December 21, 201, and received the review of the pre-assessment notice on January 27, 2012. However, according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that the instant global income tax imposition disposition is identical to that under the Framework Act on National Taxes, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as well as that under the aforementioned procedures, it cannot be deemed that the instant global income tax imposition disposition constitutes a case without going through the pre-assessment procedure. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unacceptable.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.