Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of 643,490 won on July 31, 1994 against the plaintiff and the imposition of capital gains tax of 4,474,956 won on October 13, 1997 are null and void (the plaintiff changed the lawsuit to seek nullification of the above imposition while seeking revocation of the above imposition).

A. As of July 31, 1994, the Defendant decided and notified capital gains tax of KRW 643,490 to the Plaintiff on August 15, 1994 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

B. As of October 13, 1997, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 4,474,956 of the transfer income tax by adding the amount of KRW 745,826 on November 17, 1997 as the Plaintiff’s non-report on transfer of 139,000,000 ○○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○, ○○○○○-gun, and KRW 139,992 square meters to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case is void as a matter of course for the following reasons.

(1) As each of the dispositions of this case was not served on the Plaintiff, each of the dispositions of this case cannot be deemed as effective against the Plaintiff.

(2) Each of the dispositions of this case was completed by extinctive prescription as it was not exercised for five years from the time it can be exercised.

(3) The Defendant’s disposal of the Plaintiff’s real estate by public sale based on each of the instant dispositions, even though the Defendant’s disposal of the amount of delinquent taxes based on each of the instant dispositions was carried out as of March 2003, violates the principle

(4) Although the Defendant had his family, cohabitant, and clerk participate in the process of seizing the Plaintiff’s property based on the delinquent tax amount based on each disposition of the instant case, the Defendant failed to comply with the disposition.

B. Relevant legislation

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether each of the dispositions of this case takes effect

(A) Whether the notice of the first disposition of this case was served

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 2 and 4-2 and 2-4, the plaintiff and his family members registered their resident registration in ○○-dong ○○-dong 198 from March 18, 1987 to 1998, and ② the defendant served a tax notice on the disposition No. 1 in this case on the plaintiff by means other than service by public notice, but the defendant does not currently keep the documents on the service notice of the disposition No. 1 in this case.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 5, the defendant has an internal setting of three years in accordance with the standards of the National Archives, and Article 73 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 879 of September 13, 1994) provides that "the sender or the addressee of a registered postal item may prove that the sender or the addressee of the relevant special postal item is the sender or the addressee of the relevant special postal item, and may request a certificate of delivery, by one year following the following day after the delivery of the relevant postal item to the dispatched post office or the delivery post office." Thus, as seen earlier, the notice of tax payment as to the disposition No. 1 of this case was notified as of July 31, 1994. Since it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on September 22, 2006, it cannot be said that there is a reason for failure to keep the documents to the defendant.

Meanwhile, Article 10 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4810 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that "if intending to serve a notice of tax payment, demand, disposition on default, or an order issued by the Government under the tax-related Acts by mail, it shall be served by registered mail." Article 8 (1) of the same Act provides that "a service of documents under tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business, or place of business of the holder of the title (referring to the person designated as the recipient of the documents in question)." The address refers, in principle, to the place which serves as the basis of life, but the registered domicile moving-in report according to the intent of the holder of the title (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1161 of Apr. 10, 1998). Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant served a notice of tax payment on the plaintiff's registered domicile by registered mail at the time of service by public notice.

(B) Whether the notice for tax payment of the second disposition of this case was served

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, 6 of evidence Nos. 1-2 and 2-1, 2, the defendant's notice of tax payment of the Disposition Nos. 2 of this case can be acknowledged as being served by means of service by public notice, which announces the summary of the documents on Oct. 30, 1997 and on Oct. 31, 1997. The notice of tax payment of the Disposition No. 2 of this case can be deemed as being lawfully served on the plaintiff upon the lapse of 10 days from the date of public notice pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997), since the plaintiff's notice of tax payment of this case No. 2 of this case cannot be served on the plaintiff's date of recognition of the disposition No. 2 of this case by public notice on the bulletin board, daily newspaper, etc. of this case.

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, since each of the dispositions of this case is deemed to have been lawfully served on the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion that each of the dispositions of this case cannot be effective and void as a matter of course is without merit.

(2) Other reasons

The plaintiff's assertion on other grounds is merely an argument about the defects related to the collection procedure of the delinquent duty amount based on each disposition of this case, and it is not an argument about the defects of each disposition of this case. Therefore, it is without merit to examine further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange at the trial is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

official training laws and regulations;

Basic Act

Article 8 (Service of Documents) (Amended by Act No. 4810, Dec. 22, 1994)

(1) Documents prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the designated person (referring to the person designated as the receiver of the relevant documents; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter referred to as "domicile or

(d) service shall be made to the Corporation.

Article 10 (Method of Service of Documents) (amended by Act No. 4810 of Dec. 22, 1994)

(2) When it is intended to serve by mail documents related to notification, demand, disposition on default, or order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts, such documents shall be served by registered mail.

Article 11 (Service by Public Notice)

(1) Where a person to be served with documents falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the service of documents pursuant to Article 8 shall be made after ten days have passed from the date of public announcement of the gist of documents:

shall be deemed to have been filed.

1. Where the domicile or business office is located overseas and such service is difficult;

2. Where his domicile or business office is not evident; and

3. Cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where a person prescribed in Article 10 (4) fails to serve a document at a place where it is to be served and such document is returned because of the absence of the recipient by registered mail.

(2) The public notice as provided in paragraph (1) shall be posted on bulletin boards of the Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the tax office, the place where the relevant documents are served, or on the Official Gazette

Enforcement Rule of the former Postal Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 879 of September 13, 1994)

Article 73 (Requests for Certification of Delivery after Delivery)

The sender or addressee of a registered postal item may present relevant special postal receipt, resident registration certificate, etc. to the dispatched post office or the delivering post office for one year from the following day after the delivery of the postal item to the sender or the addressee of the postal item, and may request a certificate of delivery to the sender or addressee of the postal item.