beta
(영문) 대법원 2014.12.24 2010두11320

법인세등부과처분무효확인

Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the admitted evidence.

① The head of the tax office of Thai (the Enforcement Rule of the Office Regulation of the National Tax Service and its affiliated agencies succeeded to the Defendant’s authority on July 1, 200; hereinafter “Defendant”) issued a disposition imposing KRW 319,70,860 in total of the corporate tax and special surtax for the business year 1994 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) on the Plaintiff around January 16, 1996; the disposition imposing KRW 209,193,620 in total of corporate tax and special surtax for the business year 1992 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”); and the disposition imposing KRW 14,303,50 in total of corporate tax for the business year 193 (hereinafter “instant third disposition”); and the disposition imposing KRW 319,70 in total of corporate tax and special surtax for the business year 194; and each of the above dispositions imposing KRW 125,750 in total (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and each of the above dispositions imposing the increased corporate tax and special surtax for the same date.

② While the Defendant served the notice on December 195 at the end of the disposition No. 1, 1995, there was no evidence that at the time, the Defendant attempted to serve the notice upon the Plaintiff by checking whether the Plaintiff’s representative was changed or the address on the corporate register of the Plaintiff’s representative.

In addition, the Defendant served each notice of tax payment by mail, and at the time the Plaintiff’s representative director, AH had been residing together with his family in Songpa-gu AP apartment 25 Dong 602, the domicile of the Plaintiff’s corporate register, but the mail delivery certificate for each notice of tax payment stated that the “AJ” was received from the AI of Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul, as the addressee’s address, instead of the Plaintiff’s address.

Based on these factual basis, the lower court issued a tax notice of the instant first disposition by the Defendant.