Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap442 (No. 13, 2013)

Whether the disposition of imposition that served a notice on the domicile on the resident registration is legitimate;

(1) In accordance with the rule of experience, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's mail was delivered to the plaintiff when it was sent to the plaintiff when the plaintiff's domicile was moved to the domicile of DoD. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff as the plaintiff delegated the right to receive mail and other documents to DoD.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Nu1046 Invalidity of a disposition imposing value-added tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Guhap442 Decided September 13, 2013

July 2, 2014

July 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On July 13, 2007, the defendant confirmed that the imposition of value-added tax OOOO on the plaintiff is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for our court's explanation on this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the testimony of the Z witness of the court of first instance, consistent with the plaintiff's argument, is not trustful, and even if the plaintiff submitted additional documents at the court of first instance, it is justifiable to recognize and determine the facts of the first instance, considering the following as follows: Gap's evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, and evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 10, which the plaintiff submitted in the court of first instance, was registered as the "YYY company, the name of the natural person who received the actual postal items," and thus, it is difficult to accept the defendant's postal management system, as shown in Eul evidence No. 4, because it is recorded in the name of the natural person who actually received the notice, not the recipient's name of the natural person.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are fully borne by the losing plaintiff.