B. Whether the defect is objectively apparent in a case where there is a defect that misleads the facts about the taxation disposition

B. If there is a defect that misleads the facts in the taxation disposition, if it is serious, it shall be deemed that the taxation disposition may be revoked if it is not objectively clear, and it shall not be deemed that it would be void as a matter of course. Therefore, if the misunderstanding of the facts arises from the erroneous taxation data, unless the taxation data lacks appearance and is objectively likely to suspect the establishment or authenticity of its contents, it shall not be deemed that the misunderstanding of the facts due to the taxation data is objectively obvious.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the first and third points:

Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts provides that the document shall be served by means of a registered mail in a domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the designated person (the designated person as the receiver of the document in question). Article 10 of the same Act provides that the document under the provisions of Articles 8 (1) through 8 shall be served by the delivery or mail. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that if the document is served by mail, a registered mail shall be served. Paragraph (7) of the same Article provides that if the document is served by ordinary mail, the document shall be served by mail. The head of the relevant administrative agency shall prepare and keep records to confirm the name of the document, the name of the person to receive the document, the place of service, and the main contents of the document to be served by ordinary mail, but Article 12 of the same Act provides that the document shall be served by ordinary mail to the person to whom the document may arrive at the time of delivery by ordinary mail or by ordinary mail, and such document shall be presumed to be served at the time of delivery by ordinary mail or by ordinary mail.

However, according to the evidence duly examined by the court below and the evidence No. 1 (the second taxpayer designation notice) that was not rejected by the court below, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the ordinary trade company (the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the second taxpayer designation notice.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held that the above mail sent by the defendant on April 9, 1981 is presumed to have reached all the plaintiff is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the delivery method and effective of the duty payment notice, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the appeal pointing this out is groundless.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

If there is a defect that misleads the facts in the taxation disposition, even if the defect is serious, if it is not objectively clear, the taxation disposition can not be deemed null and void, regardless of the fact that it can be cancelled. Thus, if the misunderstandings the facts due to the erroneous taxation data, unless the taxation data lacks appearance and appearance, and it is objectively likely to suspect the establishment or authenticity of the contents thereof, it is difficult to view the misunderstandings of the facts due to the taxation data as objectively apparent defect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu286, Sept. 25, 1984).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the tax disposition in this case was imposed by deeming a person who is not a shareholder as a shareholder and it is serious that the defect is significant. However, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant lacking external appearance as seen above in the list of shareholders of the non-party company, which is considered as the material for the tax disposition in this case, and even if the defendant imposed the plaintiff as a shareholder by the register of shareholders that do not correspond with the actual facts, it cannot be deemed that it is objectively obvious mistake, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax disposition in this case is null and void as a matter of course because it cannot be deemed that it is objectively obvious mistake. However, in light of the records, even if the court below judged that it can be revoked on the ground of its defect, it is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the invalidation of the administrative disposition, which

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)