[상속세등부과처분취소][공1991.2.15.(890),654]
Whether a document may be delivered at a place other than the place of delivery in a court, where a person delegated with the authority to receive the document by a taxpayer refuses (affirmative)
"Persons to be served" in the proviso to Article 10 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that if a person to be served refuses to do so, the document by delivery shall be delivered at a place other than the place of service prescribed in Article 8 (1) of the same Act, includes not only taxpayers but also those to whom the authority to receive it is delegated by such
Articles 8(1) and 10(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 6 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee
Head of Ansan Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu12273 delivered on May 17, 1990
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.
Based on macroficial evidence, the court below affirmed the judgment below's finding that, although the plaintiff's right consciousness was made by phone call to the above right consciousness No. 117-2 of Gyeyang-dong 117-dong, Ansan-dong, the registered domicile domicile domicile, and it was under circumstances where the plaintiff Lee Jong-sung et al. started for a long time and started up to 1 and 2 times a month due to the business relations, the above transfer revenue was removed from the plaintiffs, coinheritors, and he found two times to the non-party Kim Sung-sung, the co-inheritors belonging to the defendant tax office, etc., asked about the inheritance tax, etc. of this case. The above Kim Sung-sung, among the co-inheritors of this case on April 20, 198, in order to issue a tax notice only to the above right consciousness No. 117-2, the above right consciousness was not available, and it was not justified in the judgment below's finding that the above tax notice and the above tax notice of this case were received by the above non-party Lee Jong-soo, the above's heir.
The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.
Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that documents under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the holder of the title deed, and Article 10(1) of the same Act provides that the above service shall be served by delivery or mail. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the service of documents by delivery may be served on the holder of the title deed at the place where the service is to be served by the public official belonging to the relevant administrative agency, who shall be served by delivery of the documents to the person who is to receive the service at the place where the service is to be served: Provided, That if the person to receive the service refuses to receive the service, the document may be served at another place. Here, the person to receive the service shall be deemed to include not only the person who
According to the above facts acknowledged by the court below in the above purport, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's right consciousness delegated the right to receive the tax payment notice of this case to the above Lee Jong-soo, his wife, and since the above transfer amount delegated with the right to receive the tax payment notice of this case received the tax payment notice of this case from Kim Sung, the person responsible for handling the defendant's office, the decision that the tax payment notice of this case was legitimate is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is groundless
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)