IsaA

GG Head of the tax office

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Each disposition issued by the Defendant on global income tax for the Plaintiff in 196, the global income tax for the Plaintiff in 197, and the global income tax for the Plaintiff in 197, the attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on January 3, 2004, and the attachment disposition issued on each of the claims listed in [Attachment 1] No. 2 and 3 as of June 17, 2009, and the attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on each of the claims described in [Attachment 1] No. 2 and 3 as of June 17, 2009 (including the additional tax) are invalid (the Plaintiff added its claim to the claim in the first instance).

2. Purport of appeal

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

A. On October 5, 1999, the Defendant determined the payment deadline to the Defendant on October 31, 199 and imposed OOO of global income tax for the year 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “OO of global income tax imposition disposition”).

B. On December 3, 199, the Defendant rendered a decision to correct the global income tax for which the global income tax amount corresponding to the global income tax amount corresponding to the year 1996 increased by OOOOOOOO-dong 73-62 from July 15, 1996 to December 31, 1996, on the ground that the Plaintiff operated an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of OOO-dong OO-dong 73-62 to BBnoo-dong 1996, and the deadline for payment was set on January 25, 200 and served on February 14, 200 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s notice was not served on January 4, 200, and served on February 14, 200 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. As the Plaintiff did not pay the comprehensive income tax by the instant disposition, the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s attached No. 1’s attached claim on November 3, 2004 (hereinafter “the attached No. 1”), and attached the claims No. 2 and 3 in the attached No. 1’s attached claim on June 17, 2009 (hereinafter “Attachment No. 2 and 3’s attached disposition”) (hereinafter “instant attached disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 through 3, evidence 4-1, 2, 5-1, 2, 6 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition and the instant attachment disposition are null and void for the following reasons.

A. The second imposition disposition is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff operated the entertainment tavern in this case. The instant entertainment tavern in this case did not operate the entertainment tavern in this case by using the Plaintiff’s name.

B. The notice of the instant disposition was not served on the Plaintiff.

C. The instant attachment disposition based on the invalid disposition of this case is invalid.

D. Even if the instant disposition is lawful, the instant disposition was completed after the lapse of five years from the time the instant disposition was notified to the Plaintiff.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached 2 is as shown in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. The part concerning the plaintiff's claim 2. A

1) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the Changwon market permitted the business of the entertainment tavern in this case on January 24, 1989. The fact that the status of the entertainment tavern in this case was changed from July 15, 1996 to the Plaintiff on January 9, 197, the fact that the status of the entertainment tavern in this case was changed from the Plaintiff on July 15, 1996, and the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff on January 9, 1997, and the fact that the SongF operated the entertainment tavern in this case on September 21, 1998 and closed the business on June 18, 199. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff operated the entertainment tavern in this case from July 15, 196 to January 9, 197. The Plaintiff’s disposition on imposition of the entertainment tavern in this case is insufficient on the basis of evidence No. 3 alone, and the Plaintiff’s ground for disposition on imposition in this case exists.

2) In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and its defect must be objectively and objectively obvious. The defect in the taxation disposition rendered to a person who does not have any legal or factual basis subject to taxation is grave and obvious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances to mislead him as to a certain legal or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, and where it can be revealed only when the factual basis is investigated accurately, if it is apparent whether it is subject to taxation or not, it cannot be deemed apparent even if the defect is grave, and thus, even if it is illegal disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

Even if there is a defect in the second imposition disposition by stealing the business registration name of the entertainment tavern in this case to the SongF, as long as the plaintiff was registered as the business operator of the entertainment tavern in this case, it can be revealed only when a specific fact-finding is investigated. Thus, the second imposition disposition cannot be deemed null and void as the defect is not apparent. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The part concerning the plaintiff 2. Na

1) According to Articles 8(1) and 10(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same), documents under the former Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts shall be served by mail at the address, domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the title holder. According to Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, documents related to notice of tax payment, demand, disposition on default, or governmental order under tax-related Acts shall be served by mail. According to Article 10(4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, if a person to receive documents is not present at the place of service, documents may be served by mail to other employees or a person who is entitled to receive documents as a person to receive documents, his employees or a person who is not present at the place of service by public notice, and if the person refuses to receive documents by public notice without justifiable grounds, documents may be served at the place of service by public notice under Article 10(1) of the former Framework Act.

In a case where a postal item is sent by means of registration and handling, the said item shall be deemed to have been delivered to an addressee at that time, barring special circumstances, such as return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000; 97Nu8977, Feb. 13, 1998). “Where the address or place of business, which one of the reasons for service by public notice, is unclear” under Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes refers to a case where the tax authority investigates the address or place of business of a person to be served with due care as a good manager, but the address or place of business cannot be known (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du18701, May 11, 199).

(ii) a first imposition disposition;

According to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 10 of this case's taxation disposition, considering the tax item code of imposition disposition No. 1, the number of taxpayer number and payer number, name of payer, deadline for payment, notified tax amount, and all of the competent authorities, etc., which are the details of the notice of this case's taxation disposition, the defendant may recognize the fact that the payment deadline was set on Nov. 20, 199 and the urged notice was given as of Nov. 20, 199 as the plaintiff did not pay income tax pursuant to the first imposition disposition. According to Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act (amended by Ordinance No. 110 of the Ministry of Government Communications of April 20, 201), there is no evidence that the notice of imposition was returned, and Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act (amended by Ordinance No. 110 of Apr. 20, 200) provides that the defendant may request the delivery of a certificate of registered mail within one year from the date of delivery.

(iii) imposition 2;

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9, the defendant set the deadline for payment on December 3, 199 and sent a notice of imposition No. 2 to the plaintiff on December 31, 199, to the plaintiff on December 31, 199, and sent the notice of imposition No. 5-12, which is the plaintiff's resident registration, to the plaintiff on January 3, 200, < Amended by Act No. 6130, Jan. 3, 200; Act No. 6324, Jan. 24, 2000; Act No. 6310, Feb. 14, 2000; Act No. 6307, Jan. 28, 2000>

C. The plaintiff 2. D's assertion

As seen earlier, all of the instant dispositions are lawful. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the invalidity of the instant disposition is without merit.

D. The plaintiff 2. D's assertion

According to Article 27 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right, the extinctive prescription is complete. According to Article 12-4(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010), “if the State’s right to collect national taxes can be exercised” refers to “the day following the due date for payment by a duty payment notice for the pertinent tax notified in cases where the Government determines, revises, or occasionally determines the relevant tax base and tax amount.” According to Article 28(1)2 and 4 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the extinctive prescription under Article 27 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is suspended by demand or demand notice of payment, demand or demand notice of payment, or seizure, and according to Article 28(2) of the same Act, the period of

① As the time limit for payment of the first imposition disposition was October 31, 1999, the Defendant urged the payment period of the first imposition disposition to be November 20, 1999; ② the time limit for payment of the second imposition disposition was December 31, 1999; ③ the Defendant issued a tax payment notice with the time limit for payment of the second imposition disposition as of January 25, 200 as the Plaintiff was not served on the Plaintiff; ③ the Defendant did not pay the comprehensive income tax by the instant disposition; ③ the Plaintiff did not pay the comprehensive income tax by the instant disposition; and thus, the Plaintiff’s attachment disposition was lawful on June 17, 2009. According to the above recognized facts, the Plaintiff’s new attachment disposition had not been revoked for the lapse of the time limit for payment, which was the said time limit for payment by urge; and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s new attachment disposition had not been revoked for the lapse of the time limit for payment by means of demand; and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s new attachment disposition had not been revoked on June 13, 19, 2019.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed, and the plaintiff's incidental appeal and the claim added in the court of first instance are dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per