Pretax propriety review and objection procedures are not subject to pre-trial proceedings.

Since the Framework Act on National Taxes allows an administrative litigation after undergoing a request for examination or adjudgment, an objection which is a voluntary procedure cannot be filed immediately without undergoing a necessary procedure for request for examination or adjudgment.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of penalty tax of KRW 53,026,685 as to KRW 71,426,032 of the business income tax against the Plaintiff on May 13, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2003. 4. 30. 울산 울주군 ☆☆읍 ★★리 산 43-1 외 11필지의 토지를 박 ◎◎과 함께 9억 7,000만 원에 취득하고(각 지분 1/2) 이●●의 명의로 등기를 하였다 가, 위 각 토지 중 2필지를 제외한 10필지를 2003. 8. 7. 조○○ 외 11명에게 14억 5,810만 원에 양도하였다.

B. On December 8, 2008, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 142,589,410 (including additional tax of KRW 53,545,500) based on the tea notified by the public prosecutor's office and the Busan regional tax office with respect to cases of violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name.

C. Regarding this, the Plaintiff knew to the Defendant that a public official of the Busan Regional Tax Office did not have the obligation to report the transfer income tax and pay it to the Plaintiff in relation to the transfer of the above land at the time of the investigation into balknum knums and knums before the year. In addition, when imposing the tax on balknum knums and knums, the Plaintiff claimed a pre-assessment review while claiming that it would be improper to impose the tax on the Plaintiff when imposing the tax on the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff was not adopted on January 22, 2009.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office on March 30, 2009 on the same ground as the preceding paragraph, but dismissed as of April 21, 2009. On April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the Defendant on the same case along with the reasons under the preceding paragraph, on which he imposed business income tax on the Defendant, while he imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff. On May 13, 2009, the Defendant accepted this and notified the decision of KRW 124,452,710 (including additional tax KRW 53,026,685) of global income tax (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without studio, Gap evidence 1-2, re-2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the litigation of this case is legal; and

A. The defendant's main safety defense

In a taxation disposition, an administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which a decision on a request for trial or a request for review is received. The defendant filed the instant lawsuit with respect to the instant disposition without going through a request for review or a request for trial as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and

B. Determination

According to the Framework Act on National Taxes, any administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon (Article 56(2)), and the administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days after the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified (Article 56(3)); on the other hand, the request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date on which a notice of disposition is received) on which the relevant disposition is known (Articles 61(1) and 68(1)); when a request for examination or adjudgment is filed after going through an objection, it shall be filed within 90 days after the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified (Articles 61(2) and 68(2)).

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant case, the Plaintiff can be found to have not yet filed a request for examination or a request for trial on the instant disposition, and no further room exists to supplement the defect in the requirements for the instant disposition after the lapse of seven months from the date the instant disposition was issued. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it did not go through the procedure of the previous trial.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the taxation disposition of capital gains tax, including additional tax, had gone through the pre-assessment review and objection procedure prior to the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have gone through the pre-trial procedure in the event that the illegality of the disposition of this case is common to the grounds for illegality of the disposition of this case and has gone through the pre-trial procedure in the interpretation of the former. However, the Framework Act on National Taxes allows the latter to file an administrative litigation after going through the request for examination or adjudgment, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot immediately file an administrative lawsuit without going through the necessary procedure for the request for examination or adjudgment. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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