2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On July 13, 2007, the defendant confirmed that the imposition of value-added tax on the plaintiff on July 13, 2007 is null and void (OOOOs stated in the purport of the claim are deemed clerical errors).

A. From March 23, 2005, the Plaintiff was engaged in real estate rental business under the trade name called "BB commercial" from OO-dong 6-1 O-dong 6-1 O5 (O2). On July 13, 2007, the Defendant issued a tax notice imposing the value-added tax on the Plaintiff (the due date for payment July 31, 2007; hereinafter "the instant tax notice") on the following grounds that there was an error in the calculation of the value-added tax, the Defendant corrected the tax amount on July 1, 2010, and reduced the value-added tax to OO (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

B. The Defendant sent the instant tax payment notice by registered mail to OO-dong O-dong 709-2 O-dong 101 605 '605 'the domicile of this case' (hereinafter referred to as "the domicile of this case") at O-dong O-dong 709-2 O-dong O-dong 2CC apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defense of this safety and the determination thereof

The defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudication, which is a procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

However, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a taxation disposition is merely an administrative act in appearance, and it is merely a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disposition that has no legal effect from the beginning to the point of view, and thus is merely a public lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disposition that has no legal effect, and thus is not subject to the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Act), unlike the litigation seeking revocation of the taxation disposition,

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s mother residing in the same Dong was unable to park more than two vehicles in one apartment household at the time the Defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to his domicile. The Plaintiff’s mother did not reside in the instant domicile and did not actually reside in the Plaintiff’s mother living in his house and did not receive the instant tax payment notice. As such, the instant disposition is null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s domicile on the resident registration is from January 2, 2001 to July 25, 2001, OO-dong 709-2 O-dong 709-2 O-dong 1604, 1604, from July 26, 2001 to October 31, 207, and from November 1, 2007 to August 17, 201, O-dong 301 O-dong 301 O3 E-E apartment 301-dong 1103, O-dong 303.

2) The Plaintiff’s mother’s domicile on the resident registration of Park DoD was from November 13, 1997 to the present domicile.

3) The Plaintiff’s mother’s domicile on the resident registration of ChoF is from March 15, 2005 to March 1, 2006 as OO-Gu O-dong 709-2 O-dong 1604, from March 2, 2006 to O-si 301 O-dong 301, 1103, from March 22, 2007, O-dong 301 O-dong 301 O-dong 301, 301, 1103, from February 23, 2007 to January 13, 2009.

4) The Plaintiff’s father’s domicile on the resident registration of GG consists of O-gu O-dong 709-2 O-dong 1604, from January 2, 2001 to March 3, 2005, and O-gu O-dong 1604, from March 4, 2005. < Amended by Act No. 7097, Jan. 2, 2001; Act No. 7097, Mar. 4, 2005>

5) The Plaintiff’s domicile on the Plaintiff’s resident registration of HoH was from April 28, 2006 to June 8, 2006, and from May 17, 2007 to August 30, 2010, OO-dong 301 O3jE apartment 301, 1103.

6) The Plaintiff resided from around 2008 to August 201, 201 in OO-si 00 O-dong 301 O3jE apartment 301 Dong 1103.

7) According to the defendant's internal computer network service status investigation (the record of the service status of registered mail), the notice of this case was "the completion of service by registered mail", and the recipient was written as "BB commercial company".

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, witness II testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), documents provided for in this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the title holder. According to Article 10(1) and (2) of the same Act, the service of a tax payment notice shall, in principle, be served by registered mail and delivered to the taxpayer. In the event a postal item is sent by registered mail, it shall be deemed that the document was delivered to the addressee around that time, barring special circumstances, such as return, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3819, Mar. 27, 199

In addition, if a resident registration has been transferred to his/her domicile for at least five years for the convenience of living, such as school problems of children, it is reasonable to view that he/she delegated his/her authority to receive postal items sent to him/her due to social needs (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu195, Oct. 10, 1984) in light of the purpose of the resident registration system or the purpose of transferring the resident registration as above, etc.

In this case, according to the above facts, the plaintiff resided in OO-gu O-dong 709-2 O-dong 101 1604, where the plaintiff's parents reside from January 2001 to February 2006, the plaintiff resided in O-dong 709-2 O-dong 101 1604, and thereafter, from August 201 to O-dong 301 1103 O-dong 301 O-dong 301 O-dong 301 O-dong 301 O-dong 303 OE apartment where the plaintiff's parents reside. It seems that the plaintiff did not reside at the domicile of this case at the time of the delivery of the tax notice

However, considering the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother resided in the above OO2CC apartment 101 Dong 1604 for five years from Jan. 2001 to Feb. 2006, and Park Jong-do resided in the above OBCC apartment 605 Dong, which is the address of this case during the above period, and it can be easily inferred that ChoF and Park Jong-D had frequent access to the above apartment house, which is the domicile of this case, and that it was delivered to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff’s mail was sent to Park Dong-gu’s domicile for the purpose of living convenience, such as the use of the parking lot, etc. for a long time. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s notice of this case was legally entrusted with the Plaintiff’s right to receive postal items and other documents. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff was delivered to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s service of this case under the premise that the Plaintiff was not properly used.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.