Tax administrative litigation instituted without going through the procedure of the previous trial is illegal.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had undergone the procedure of a request for examination or adjudgment before filing the lawsuit in this case, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012 Action for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

United Kingdom A

Head of the Office of Government

September 25, 2012

November 13, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 8, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, a representative of “BB company, of the amount of value added tax to KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the second period of March 2009, and KRW 000 for the first period of September 7, 2010 (including additional tax), and KRW 000 for the first period of April 1, 2010, and KRW 00 for the second period of value added tax for the second period of October 1, 2010.

B. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not pay each of the above value-added taxes; around March 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 000 of the regular value-added tax for the second period of 2009 (including surcharges); KRW 000 of the regular value-added tax for the first period of 2010 (including surcharges); KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 (including surcharges); and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010 (including surcharges); and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010 (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, and 3 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the duty payment notice of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case did not go through the procedure before the court, and Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be filed without going through the procedure before the court, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18 (1), the main sentence of Article 18 (2) and Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had gone through the procedure before the court pursuant to Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes before the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is filed, and the defendant's principal safety defense pointing this out is unlawful, and there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's argument, and it is clear that the plaintiff's argument has not gone through the procedure before the court, and that the plaintiff's reply was served on the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

partnership.