2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1) The Plaintiff stated the date of disposition in the purport of the claim as " October 5, 2015," but this is the date of service of the written disposition, and the date of disposition is September 14, 2015, and such correction is made as above.

Cheong-gu Office

A. From July 13, 2005, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant in the name of Daejeon 00,000 Dong 00,000 Dong 3 to 6,000 building, and transferred the said restaurant’s facilities and business rights to three persons, other than Kim NT, on December 13, 2006.

B. From July 1, 2010 to July 20, 2010, the Director of the Regional Tax Office conducted the consolidated investigation of the Plaintiff with respect to the Plaintiff, and then notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the Defendant omitted income of KRW 000 billion on the basis of the consideration of the use of facilities and equipment as the rent for the use of such facilities and equipment. On September 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on September 10, 200 of the value-added tax of KRW 1 billion for the year 2007, KRW 00 for the second year value-added tax of KRW 1 for the year 2007, KRW 00 for the second year value-added tax of KRW 1 for the year 2008, KRW 00 for the second year value-added tax of KRW 1 for the year 2009, and KRW 00 for the second year of 200 for the year 2009 (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

C. On January 23, 2013, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment revoking the previous disposition on the ground that the above KRW 00 million constituted the consideration for the transfer of business rights, not the usage fees for the facilities, etc. ( Daejeon District Court 201Guhap4581). The Defendant appealed against this, but the Daejeon High Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on February 13, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu343).

D. The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. However, on May 7, 2014, the Supreme Court rendered a final appeal ex officio revocation of the part exceeding the reasonable tax amount among the previous dispositions, and on July 24, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit has no interest in lawsuit and is unlawful, and dismissed the said lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du5156).

E. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 of the value-added tax of KRW 2006 on the ground that the said KRW 000,000 to the Plaintiff constitutes a consideration for transferring business rights in 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on May 10, 2016, but the Director of the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the service of the instant disposition is inappropriate, the instant disposition is null and void.

2) The Plaintiff did not evade the value-added tax on the transfer of goodwill by fraud or other wrongful means. As such, the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax is five years, and the instant disposition was made five years after the date of transfer of goodwill, and is unlawful.

3) Even if the Plaintiff’s evasion of value-added tax and the exclusion period for imposition was extended to 10 years due to fraud or other unlawful act, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay value-added tax on the transfer of goodwill, such as the Defendant’s erroneous imposition of value-added tax, etc. on the previous disposition, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First of all, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, documents prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the person in whose name the document is served, and pursuant to Article 10(4) of the same Act, documents may be served on the person in whose name the document is to be served unless the person in whose name the document is to be served is present at the place where the document is to be served.

2) In light of the above provisions, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as follows, the written disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have been served on the plaintiff, the plaintiff's employee, or employee, or a person with legitimate authority to receive service as a person living together with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's employee, or a person living together with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's written disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have been served on the plaintiff, the plaintiff's written disposition of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is null and void since it can be deemed to have sought its revocation in the sense of seeking the declaration of invalidation of the administrative disposition. Thus, the disposition of this case

A) On September 14, 2015, the Defendant sent the instant written disposition to 00,000 - 7,000 - 0,000, the Plaintiff’s domicile, but the instant written disposition was returned due to the absence of the closed text, etc.

B) On October 2, 2015, the Defendant sent the instant disposition to Daejeon 0-Gu 00-2, 002, which is the place of business under the Plaintiff’s name. The Defendant received the instant disposition, which is the company’s fee (e.g., “SDR” written at the 2nd 0,000,000.

C) The point of 00 is one of the employment income as a withholding agent. According to the above, the number of working days of Park SR is 138, 2009, 19, 2011, 27, 2012, 2013, 2014, 48, 2016, 217, and 19, and there is no record of working hours in 2015 upon receipt of the instant disposition. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that Park SR did not report the employment income in 2015, since it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s employment income in 2015. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not report the employment income in 2015, 2015, 2014, 2015, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2015.

D) Otherwise, there is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff either explicitly or implicitly delegated the right to receive to ParkSR, or that the instant disposition was legally delivered to the Plaintiff by any other means.

E) In the delivery of the tax payment notice and the delivery by mail, it shall be deemed that it is necessarily premised on the actual receipt of the said tax payment notice by the taxpayer or the person in a specific relationship with him/her, and even if a taxpayer is already aware of the details of the tax payment notice, it cannot be said that the service of the tax payment notice is unnecessary (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13908, Apr. 9, 2004). Thus, even if the Plaintiff knew of the contents of the instant disposition and went through the appeal procedure, it cannot be deemed that the defects of the instant disposition

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.