The person who bears the burden of proving the grounds for invalidation of the administrative disposition in a lawsuit seeking nullification of the administrative disposition (=the plaintiff) and the person detained in a detention house;

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void. Meanwhile, there are no special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act (Service to the Detained Persons, etc.) or the provisions concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, a notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served as his/her domicile, residence, place of business or office pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless there are special circumstances. In such cases, if the person to be served on the detention house, etc. fails to do so at that place,

Articles 4(2), 26(s), 35, and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu351 Decided August 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3139), Supreme Court Decision 96Da23184 Decided March 18, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 715), Supreme Court Decision 99Du11851 Decided March 23, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1073), Supreme Court Decision 99Da1260 Decided June 11, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1488)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office (Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Jeon Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu12926 decided January 22, 2009

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove that the administrative disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992; 9Du11851, Mar. 23, 200; 9Du1260, Jun. 1, 2001; 9Da1260, Jun. 1, 2001). Meanwhile, in the Framework Act on National Taxes, there are no special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act (Service on Detained Persons, etc.) and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning delivery of a notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc., if the notice of tax payment is served at that place, and if the person was not served at that place, it may be served to such employee, other employee, or a person who is able to be identified as a deceased person (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 196Nu 198Da.

According to the records, the plaintiff himself was detained in the detention house at the time of the instant tax disposition, and his family members were residing in other places regardless of the "Seoul Yangcheon-dong 912 Hodong apartment (hereinafter omitted)," which was the domicile of his family members, and thus, they failed to receive the instant tax disposition at that time, which appears to have been delivered to the above domicile, so the above tax disposition was illegal and invalid, and thus, the pertinent tax disposition is null and void. In light of the above legal principles, as alleged by the plaintiff, the court below should have judged the legality of the instant tax disposition after a more closely examining whether the plaintiff and his family members were not actually residing in the above domicile (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995; 97Nu87979, Feb. 13, 1998, etc.).

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant taxation disposition is null and void on the ground that the Defendant’s lack of proof as to whether the instant tax notice was served on the Plaintiff, on the premise that the Defendant bears the burden of proving whether the instant tax notice was served on the Defendant. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of proof in the administrative litigation seeking nullification of the disposition, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)