상속세등부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The case is remanded to the Seoul Administrative Court.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The following facts are apparent in the record:
On August 6, 2014, the presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order of correction ordering the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 13,136,100 of the unpaid stamp amount in writing within five days from the date of receipt of the notice (hereinafter “order of correction of stamp”).
B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs entered the Plaintiffs’ address in the instant complaint as “Seoul-gu F” (hereinafter “instant address”), and the court of first instance sent to the Plaintiffs on July 14, 2014 by the court of first instance a certified copy of the order of preparation for name cards sent to the Plaintiffs on July 18, 2014.
In addition, the instant warden was served on July 23, 2014 on the Defendant.
C. On August 6, 2014 and August 18, 2014, the first instance court sent the instant order of recognition correction to the Plaintiffs, but it was impossible to serve the instant order due to the addressee’s unknown whereabouts.
On August 28, 2014, the court of first instance sent the instant order to correct the stamp by registered mail to the address of the instant case in accordance with Article 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant lawsuit on October 8, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the order of correction of recognition after the order of correction of recognition was sent by mail.
2. Determination
A. The grounds for determining that the first instance court’s lawsuit is unlawful by paying the entire amount of the stamp due according to the correction order of the amount of the stamp due in the first instance court’s non-payment at the hearing of the Plaintiffs’ assertion were cured.
The legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be determined at the time of the closing of argument in the appellate court, but at the time of the closing of argument in the appellate court. Therefore, the judgment of the court of
B. Prior to the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion, we examine whether the order to correct the recognition of this case was legitimately served on the plaintiffs.
(1) Whether the requirements for delivery under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act are met.