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

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim is as stated in paragraph (1).

Preliminary claim: A disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 288,537,912 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2014 shall be revoked.

When the Defendant imposed the transfer income tax for the year 2006 on the Plaintiff, the Defendant served a tax notice to the Plaintiff’s past address, excluding the fact that the Plaintiff transferred to another address, and received it by Nonparty 2, who was entirely unaware of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void, and the instant disposition should be revoked as preliminary.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff did not go through the procedure of the preceding trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes, but it is not necessary to go through the procedure of the preceding trial in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation. As seen below, as long as the defendant receives the main claim of the plaintiff, the defendant'

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff owned the Gangnam-gu Seoul c apartment 000 (hereinafter the instant real estate) and transferred it to another person on January 23, 2006.

2) On August 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the Gangnam-gu Seoul o Lake (Oodong and o apartment), but on February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the address of the Seoul Western-gu Seoul Northern-ro (hereinafter “CCC address”), oooho (hereinafter “Seoul”) on March 6, 2014, and ooho (hereinafter “CCC address”) on March 26, 2014.

3) On January 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation of capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and confirmed that the Plaintiff was a move-in report to the address of the instant CCC and requested the director of the CCC to issue a tax notice of the instant disposition to the director of the CCC.

4) Accordingly, on March 7, 2014, the director of the CCC tax office imposed the fact that the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to the Seoul address on March 6, 2014, the day immediately preceding the day, and served a tax notice on the instant disposition on the Plaintiff’s address by registered mail. Nonparty 2, who was not the Plaintiff, received it on March 10, 2014.

5) On the other hand, the mail delivery statement (Evidence B(Evidence B(Evidence 2) states that "BB is "the plaintiff's her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 10, 12, 13 (including virtual numbers), Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) According to Articles 8(1) and 10(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax payment notice shall be served by registered mail at the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the holder of the title deed. If the service of a tax payment notice is unlawful, such disposition shall not take effect because it has not yet been notified to the person liable for tax payment. As long as the service of a tax payment is illegal, so long as the service of a tax payment notice is made in an unlawful manner, the defect in the service is not cured even if the person liable for tax payment could have recognized the existence of the disposition imposing tax or some of the imposed tax amount was paid (see, e.g.

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu332 delivered on May 9, 1984, etc.

2) In the instant case, the Defendant served a notice of tax payment of the instant disposition to the address of the instant CCC with excessive restriction despite the Plaintiff’s moving-in report to the Seoul address. As long as the relationship between the high BB and the Plaintiff received such notice is unclear, the above service is unlawful and thus the instant disposition is null and void. Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff’s primary claim is reasonable and the primary claim is accepted, it is not further determined as to the propriety of the conjunctive claim.

3) The defendant alleged that the plaintiff was not an independent director with intent to not receive a tax notice of the disposition of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.