2. On July 9, 2004, the part of the disposition imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the aforementioned appointed parties regarding the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 202,414,776, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the aforementioned appointed parties, shall be revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, including the part arising between the Defendant’s pre-selected ○○, Lee○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Kim○, Ma○, Kim○, Ma○, Kim○, Ma○, Ma○, and the Defendant, respectively.

A. In order to participate in the private capital inducement development project, the Plaintiff et al. sold 10 boxes of 30 rooms in the hotel room located in ○○○○○○○ City, which had been in force at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and registered joint business operators with the name of the Plaintiff et al. on September 30, 2002 for the purpose of the hotel tourism business. Since joint business operators were added between March 27, 2003, the Plaintiff et al. corrected the registration of joint business operators with the name of the Plaintiff et al. and 25 other than the Plaintiff et al. during that process, the final value-added tax return for 202 and the estimated value-added tax return

B. On this point, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office pointed out that the plaintiff et al. acquired a hotel personally and received a purchase tax invoice through a joint business in the regular audit of the defendant tax secretary's book. On July 9, 2004, the defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of the amount of value-added tax 202,414,770 won and value-added tax 101,021,622 won and value-added tax 1,203 scheduled to be refunded to the plaintiff et al. on July 9, 2004 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

C. The Defendant sent the above tax notice to the Plaintiff by means of registered mail at ○○○○○○ apartment, ○○○○○○○-2, ○○○○○○○○○-1, 24-10, 200, and 30-1,6-1,6-1,6-2, 4, 7, 4, 7, 7, 4, 7, 4, 7, 1, 7, 4, 7, 4, 7, 7, 4, 7, 1, 4, 7, 7, 4, 7, 1, 4, 7, 4, 7, 1, 4, 7, 4, 7, 1, 4, 7, 7, 4, 1, 4, 7, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 1, 6, 3, 4, 7, 2, 4.

D. On October 14, 2004, the Plaintiff et al. appealed and accordingly deducted the input tax amount of KRW 101,021,622 from the disposition of this case and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 101,021,62, which was scheduled for 1 year 203, and corrected the disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff. The remaining claimant’s claims were also dismissed on the grounds of the expiration of the request period.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 3 and 6 (including those with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The Plaintiff did not receive a tax notice (the notice was served to the ○○ hotel, but the ○○ hotel did not have a responsible person after the default on July 2003, and the ○○○ hotel was merely the representative of the ○○ hotel in the name of ○○, and the person who actually received it was cleaning rather than ○○○○) and the fact that the instant disposition was issued by a selected person Kim○○ on July 17, 2004. Therefore, the service of a tax notice received by ○○○○ is invalid.

(B) Although the right shares of the hotel tourism business is clearly divided, the Plaintiff et al. is a joint proprietor, not an individual entrepreneur, because the Plaintiff et al. is unable to register the purchase tax invoice in the name of a joint proprietor, even though the right shares are clearly divided, due to the characteristics of the hotel, it is not true that the purchase tax invoice was received

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) Since ○○○○ Co., Ltd. is a corporation that sold ○○ hotel to the Plaintiff, etc., and is responsible for operating and managing the intended ○○○ hotel as a whole, it is a lawful service of delivering a tax notice under the Plaintiff’s name to ○○○○○, a representative director of the ○○ Co., Ltd., which was served on ○○○○○○○○. Ultimately, the Plaintiff et al., who was aware of the instant disposition from July 9, 2004 to July 13, 204, and filed a request for review after 90 days thereafter, the Plaintiff et al.’s

(B) The value-added tax on each hotel provided prior to the registration as a business entity is not imposed on the person who is a final consumer unrelated to the business, and thus, the pertinent disposition that deducts the relevant input tax amount is lawful.

(C) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the subject matter of the trial shall be deemed to be the existence of the taxable value decided by the tax authority. As such, the litigant may submit all the data on the existence or scope of the tax base, etc. until the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the tax disposition, and assert the legitimacy of the taxation disposition based on the submitted data. Thus, even if the issue of the input tax amount prior to the

(b) Related statutes;

○ Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

(1) Documents as prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office [referring to electronic mail address (referring to any place accessible by means of an identification mark of the holder of a title deed, if stored in national tax information and communications networks) in the case of service by means of information and communications networks (hereinafter referred to as "electronic service"); hereinafter referred to as "domicile or place of business"] of the holder of the title deed (referring to the person designated as the recipient of the documents

(2) Where it is intended to serve documents on persons jointly liable for tax payment, they shall be served on the holder in the name of a representative, and where there is no representative, they shall be served on the holder who is favorable to the collection of national taxes from among persons jointly liable for tax payment: Provided, That documents concerning the notification and demand of tax payment shall

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

(1) Documents provided for in Article 8 shall be served by delivery, mail, or electronic delivery.

(2) When it is intended to serve by mail documents related to notification, demand, disposition on default, or order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts, such documents shall be served by registered mail.

(3) In case of paragraphs (2) and (3), if a person to receive a document is not present at the place where the document is to be served, it may be served to his employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgement; and if the person to receive the document, his employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgement refuses the receipt of document without justifiable grounds, the document may be left at the place where the document is to be served.

Article 12 (Taking Effect of Service)

(1) Any document served under Article 8 shall take effect when it reaches the person to receive the document.

Article 25 (Joint Tax Liability)

(1) National taxes, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default related to the joint-owned property, joint-owned property, or property belonging to the joint-owned business shall be jointly and severally liable to pay such expenses.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a service place is the domicile, residence, place of business, or office of the title holder. According to Articles 8(2) and 25(1) of the same Act, national taxes related to a joint business are jointly and severally liable to pay taxes, and documents pertaining to the notice of tax payment must be served on all joint taxpayers. Here, the term “office or office” refers to a business place or office of the title holder himself/herself, and it refers to a business place or office of the title holder, within a certain scope, where business-oriented or business-related is continuously conducted, and does not include a simple work place, in which case one is a central place where business-oriented or cannot be said to be conducted independently.

(2) (A) Claim against the Plaintiff

In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 6 (including number 2) alone, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff's business office or office 0,00 Dong-dong 24-10 operated by the plaintiff, which served a tax payment notice under the plaintiff's name, was the legitimate place for service, or that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the disposition of this case was imposed even before the time when the plaintiff served the tax payment notice under his name. Rather, according to Gap evidence 8, 9, and 10, the defendant's disposition was lawful for 40 days from March 15, 2003; on April 8, 2003; on May 21, 2003, the above tax payment notice, appropriation notice, etc. related to the plaintiff's hotel 20 days from the date when the plaintiff's request for review was lawful for 9 days from the date when the above tax payment notice was served to 00 ○○-dong 384-107 days from the plaintiff's request for review.

(b) Claim concerning the designated parties

In light of the above facts, since the designated parties received the notice of tax payment as to the disposition of this case from July 9, 2004 to July 13, 2004, the designated parties were aware of the disposition of this case at that time. On October 14, 2004, 90 days thereafter, the designated parties received the notice of tax payment as to the disposition of this case from July 9, 2004. Accordingly, the designated parties' lawsuit of this case is unlawful because they did not go through the necessary pre-determination procedure.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of this case against the designated parties in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is null and void. The plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition of this case includes the purport of seeking revocation as well as revocation of the meaning of declaring invalidation as well as a strict meaning. Thus, the part of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition.