A request for correction filed with the lapse of the deadline for filing a request for correction shall be inappropriate.

A request for correction filed with the lapse of the deadline for filing a request for correction shall be inappropriate, and it shall not be subject to appeal on the ground that the tax authority rejected the request.

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax by Suwon District Court 2014Guhap2035

The judgment was pronounced, and the related judgment was rendered through appeal and appeal, 2010.

10. 19. The decision was finalized as is.

C. On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of value-added tax on the first quarter of 2010 and July 25, 2010.

The final return of value-added tax was filed, and on October 25, 2010, value-added tax for the second period of 2010.

Preliminary return was made on January 25, 201, and the final return was filed on January 25, 201. However, the Plaintiff filed a final return.

The defendant did not pay the tax amount to the plaintiff, and the first period of September 7, 2010 to the plaintiff

Value-added tax was imposed on KRW 4,451,281 (including additional tax), and March 8, 2011 was imposed on March 2010.

The second term value-added tax of KRW 9,448,560 (including additional tax) was imposed.

D. Meanwhile, the plaintiff is anticipated to receive the increased management expenses from the land owner and the above payment is expected.

In 2010, the first period and second period of value added tax were reported and confirmed.

on the ground that the grounds for filing a claim for rectification have occurred due to the final judgment of the relevant case posted;

On February 12, 2014, a written request for correction was submitted to the defendant.

E. On February 19, 2014, the Defendant’s sales of the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax in 2010 to the Plaintiff

As it is not confirmed, it was notified that the claim for correction cannot be accepted.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 3 to 6, 7-1, 2-2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

Article 45 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) 45

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act shall apply to a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return.

In excess of the tax base and tax amount to be reported under tax-related Acts;

at least three years after the statutory due date of return elapses, the first return or revised return to the head of the competent tax office;

(2) If such determination or correction has been made, such determination or correction shall be required.

more than 90 days after the person became aware of the relevant disposition, with respect to the increased tax base and amount

A request for correction may be made only within three years after the expiration of the mental deadline; and

Paragraph 2 Paragraph 1 of the same Article shall apply to a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return, or national taxes.

A person who has received the determination of the tax base and amount of tax shall be the tax base in the initial return, determination or correction; and

transaction, act, etc. which is the basis for calculating the amount of tax shall be subject to a judgment in a lawsuit related thereto.

such determination within 2 months of the date on which the occurrence of such cause was known; or

§ 25(1)(3)(2)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(2)(2)(2)

claim for correction filed by a tax authority is unlawful and thus the tax base and amount of tax are determined or corrected, or

Since there is no obligation to take a corrective measure, a complaint is filed even if the tax authority rejected a corrective measure.

No disposition of refusal that is subject to transmission shall be deemed a disposition of refusal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44830 Decided March 12, 2015).

AAA, Inc.

00. Head of tax office

on 21, 2015

on February 22, 2015

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

On February 19, 2014, the Defendant’s refusal to correct the first and second parts of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on February 19, 2014, and confirmed that the refusal to correct the first and second parts of value-added tax is null and void as the conjunctively stated in the application for the modification of the grounds for the claim ( although the purport of the claim and the application for the modification of the grounds for the claim are indicated as selectively seeking revocation or invalidity confirmation of the above refusal to correct the disposition, the claim for nullification and revocation of the administrative disposition can be combined only with the primary and reserve claim, and the combination or simple consolidation as selective claims are not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889, Aug. 20, 199).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff registered and managed the name of the vehicle as the Plaintiff between the corporation that engages in trucking transport business, etc. as a corporation and BB, etc., and entered into a contract on vehicle surface management with the effect that the actual operation of the vehicle is to be decided by BB, etc. who is the owner of the land, and received monthly management expenses from the owner of the land, such as BB,

B. On November 6, 2008, the Plaintiff notified the borrower of his intent to increase the management expenses from the former KRW 165,000 to KRW 50,000,000, but filed a lawsuit on the claim for the management expenses, etc. with the Suwon District Court 2008Gahap2295 (the main lawsuit), and 2009Gahap500 (the counter lawsuit) as it did not pay the increased management expenses. On November 6, 2009, the above court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the increase in the management expenses (hereinafter “related party”).

(see, e.g., refer to):

Meanwhile, Article 48 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12851, Dec. 23, 2014)

According to Articles 49(1) and 49(1), an entrepreneur shall file a preliminary return period (the first period: January 1) during each taxable period.

From July 1 to September 31, and from September 30, 200 to September 30) 25 days after completion.

The tax base and payable or refunded tax for each preliminary return period under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance;

amount shall be reported to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, and each taxable period (the first period: January 1 to 6.

By 30th day of each month, from July 1 to December 31), the tax base and payable amount for the second period, or

Tax payment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, within 25 days after the period of taxation expires.

The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the branch shall report the preliminary return: Provided, That the business operator who has made the preliminary return shall

The tax base and paid tax amount shall not be declared.

With respect to this case, the health unit and the plaintiff's request for correction are made, Article 45-2 Item 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

If a claim for correction is deemed to be a claim for correction under the subsection, the plaintiff on July 25, 2010 (the first term portion in 2010), which is the statutory due date of return;

After the lapse of January 25, 2011 (the second term portion in 2010) the Defendant shall be subject to a lapse of three years on February 12, 2014.

Since a written request for correction was submitted, it is illegal and illegal, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

A request for correction shall be deemed a request for correction under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

Even if the judgment of the relevant case became final and conclusive, the plaintiff was more than three and four years since October 19, 2010.

Since a written request for correction was submitted to the defendant on February 12, 2014, this is also unlawful.

Thus, the defendant notified the defendant that he refused the above application.

Even if this is not a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation, it shall not be considered a rejection disposition.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense pointing this out is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and all of it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.