조세심판결정문을 납세자의 모에게 송달한 것은 적법한 송달로 그로부터 90일이 도과된 제소는 부적법함[각하]
Cho High-2016-west-0259 (2016.02)
90 days from the date of lawful service of a document served on the parent of the taxpayer of the decision of tax appeal is unlawful.
90 days from the date of lawful service of a document served on the parent of the taxpayer of a decision on tax appeal shall be dismissed.
Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2016Guhap6443 global income and revocation of disposition
OO
O Head of tax office
November 25, 2016
December 27, 2016
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On April 24, 2015, the Defendant revoked the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 000,000, imposed on the Plaintiff in 2007.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 9, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract by which 0 shares issued by AA (the name of the company after this change was made to BB), a corporation listed on KOSDAQ, (the name of the company after this change was made; hereinafter referred to as BB) and management rights were acquired from BO for KRW 7.5 billion from BO.
B. Gao prepared a “written confirmation of receipt of the price for acquisition of stocks and management rights” to the effect that only 7.3 billion won of the above 7.5 billion won was actually paid, and Gao was paid by Gao.
The plaintiff received 200 million won which was not received.
C. On April 24, 2015, the Defendant received the above KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff as a fee for financial consulting, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of KRW 136,864,730, global income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the foregoing and filed an objection on July 22, 2015 with the Tax Tribunal on December 7, 2015.
Although an appeal was filed on May 2, 2016, it was dismissed on May 2, 2016. The Plaintiff’s motherO received the notification of the said decision of tax appeal on May 4, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes examines the Plaintiff’s claim as a formative lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition rendered by the Defendant. Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes addresses a tax disposition
The plaintiff's mother shall file a lawsuit within 90 days after being notified of the decision. However, as seen earlier, on May 4, 2016, the plaintiff's mother received a notice of tax judgment (Article 10 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes that the document may be served to a person who is capable of making judgment as a person living together, if the plaintiff's mother does not appear at the place to be served with the person to be served with the document at which the document is to be served. There is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff's mother's O is not a person to be able to make judgment as referred to in the above provision.) The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on August 11, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days from the plaintiff's mother's O.
3. Conclusion
The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful, and the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.
It is so decided as per sentence.