(b) The case holding that an address or a business office which is the cause of service by publication under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is located overseas and it is difficult to serve it;

B. In the event that the domicile of the person on whom a notice of inheritance tax payment was served is the United States, and the above notice of tax payment was not served on his domicile by means of registered mail was returned on the ground that it was not served on his domicile, it shall be reasonable to deem that the address or the place of business, which is the reason for service by public notice, is overseas and the service is difficult.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

2. The defendant asserts that the taxation disposition of this case is lawful. First, the defendant, around March 1987, issued a tax notice to the plaintiff himself by registered mail in the name of the plaintiff himself, but at that time, the non-party 2 was appointed as the plaintiff's guardian in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Nowon-ro Rawlsa or the Rode Military Court, which was a minor of the plaintiff 15 years old, and so the plaintiff was not capable of receiving a tax notice directly by the plaintiff. Further, the reason why the defendant sent a tax notice to the plaintiff on March 5, 1987 to the plaintiff was not known as the recipient, but it did not find a mail. Thus, the above tax disposition of this case is unlawful in the scope of the above taxation disposition of 0 years since the plaintiff's above tax notice of this case did not meet the requirements of service by public notice under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the plaintiff's above tax disposition of this case should be excluded from the plaintiff's ownership registration of the above land and its lot number on the ground 100.

Therefore, in full view of the purport of oral argument as to the plaintiff's first argument, Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Disposition of Loss of Nationality) and No. 5 (Order) without dispute about the establishment, the plaintiff is a minor who was born on July 2, 197 and left 15 years old as of July 10, 1987 when the defendant served a notice of tax payment of the inheritance tax of this case, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant was decided to appoint non-party Nos. 2 as the plaintiff's guardian on July 10, 1985, and that there was an intelligence sufficient to change the sense that the service can be received even if it was a minor, its service cannot be deemed unlawful. Thus, since the defendant received the above notice of tax payment of the inheritance tax of this case as of July 10, 1985, it should be deemed that the service of the plaintiff's artificial intelligence would change the age of the plaintiff at the time of service of the above notice of tax payment of inheritance tax, barring any special circumstances.

In addition, Article 11 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when a person to be served with documents (the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts) has his domicile or place of business overseas and it is difficult to serve documents abroad, service by public notice shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes after the lapse of ten days from the date of public notice of the summary of the documents. As seen above, the plaintiff's domicile was the United States at the time of service of the notice of the inheritance tax for this case by registered mail to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's domicile was the US at the time of service of the notice of the inheritance tax for this case by registered mail to the plaintiff, but it was impossible to serve documents because the plaintiff was not found. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's domicile or business place of the person to be served with the documents stipulated in Article 11 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is overseas and it is difficult to serve the documents by public notice to the plaintiff.

Next, in full view of the purport of the oral argument as to the plaintiff's second argument, Gap evidence Nos. 3 without dispute, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 3 purchased (tax number omitted) land and its ground from the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's net on December 3, 1986, and filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff on June 22, 1987, with the payment of the purchase price of KRW 9,00,000, and the lawsuit for claiming ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff on June 22, 1987, the appellate court, received KRW 10,000 from the above non-party 3, and received the ownership transfer registration procedure for the above real estate from the above non-party 1, and it can be acknowledged that the non-party 1 still owns the above real estate before the commencement of inheritance or the inheritance tax was levied on the non-party 1, who did not own the above real estate before the commencement of inheritance registration (the above real estate sale contract is not subject to taxation.)

Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition, such as the inheritance tax of this case, is legitimate in light of each evidence admitted by the party members, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's burden.

Judges Lee Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)