If only a move-in report is filed and is not resident, the burden of proof for receipt of the registered mail shall be the customs authority.

It is reasonable to deem that the disposition of this case is null and void because it does not become effective externally unless it reaches the plaintiff entitled to receive the notice, and as long as the tax notice of this case does not take effect.

Article 10 (Service Methods of Documents) (Service Methods)

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 144,205,864 on the Plaintiff on October 6, 200 on global income for the year 200 and the imposition of KRW 6,129,333 on global income for the year 2001 are all null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 7 may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. From April 15, 1998 to December 31, 2001, the Plaintiff was employed as the representative director of ○○○ Ri, a corporation established for the purpose of selling condominium sales, etc.

B. Around 203, the head of ○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the head office of ○○○○○ Shipbuilding included KRW 221,772,100, and KRW 14,880,096 of the income amount omitted from the sales return in the business year 200, which was omitted from the sales return in the business year 200, and KRW 14,880,096 of the income amount omitted from the sales return in the business year 201, and then disposed of the said income as a bonus to the Plaintiff who was the representative director at the time of the occurrence of the impossibility of attribution, on the ground that the attribution was unclear, and notified

C. Accordingly, on October 6, 2003, the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 144,205,864, and global income tax of KRW 6,129,333, on the basis of the total amount of the Plaintiff’s initial income in 200 and 2001, as seen above, and each of the above income amount disposed of by recognized contribution as the tax base.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

As the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition after the lapse of the time limit for filing an objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful as it was filed by the Plaintiff without going through a lawful pre-trial procedure against the instant disposition. However, Article 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of various dispositions, as Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides for the principle of discretionary or necessary administrative review. Thus, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a tax imposition disposition may be filed regardless of whether the procedures for the pre-trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes are implemented and whether it is legitimate. Thus, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit, without

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(A) As to whether the instant disposition has arrived at the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not actually reside in the apartment that was located at the Plaintiff’s domicile at the time of the instant disposition, as well as there was no record of delegation of the authority to receive special mail, such as registered mail, to the security guards of the above apartment, and the Plaintiff did not have received a tax payment notice from the said security guards, so the instant disposition has not become effective.

(B) Even if the disposition in this case became effective, while the plaintiff was working as a manager of ○○ Development from December 15, 1997 as a result of the reorganization court in charge of ○○ Development’s reorganization procedure, the plaintiff was appointed as a representative director of ○○○○○○ Shipbuilding who was a real subsidiary of ○○ Development’s construction of ○○ Development as a representative director under the direction of the reorganization court in charge of ○○ Development’s reorganization procedure, and the plaintiff was under the supervision of the reorganization court and performed only the business within the limited scope, such as collection of claims against ○○○○○○○○ Shipbuilding. Thus, the plaintiff was merely a formal representative director of ○○○○○ Development’s construction, and actually was in the same position as the manager of the reorganization company. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the actual representative of ○○○○○○○ Shipbuilding who was subject to disposition by recognizing the income amount leaked to the private company.

(C) Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff was the actual representative of the ○○○○○ Shipbuilding, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of the content of the letter of confirmation by ○○○○○○, and Park Jong-○, who was retired from ○○ Development around 1998 and was not the ○○○○○○ Development who was employed again in ○○ Development in the latter part of 2000, but was not the ○○○○○ Development’s accounting director, who was not the ○○○○○○○○○○○, in light of his position, duty contents, and work period, cannot be deemed to have been in a position to sufficiently confirm the income amount of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

(2) As to the issue of whether the disposition in this case reached the plaintiff, since it is common practice to receive special mail, such as registered mail, on behalf of the residents without security guards in the apartment house where there is no security guards in the apartment house, and deliver it to the residents. Thus, the apartment residents implicitly delegated the right to receive registered mail, etc. to the security guards of the apartment where they reside. Thus, the plaintiff implicitly delegated the right to receive registered mail, etc. to the security guards of the apartment where they reside, and the security guards delegated the right to receive the registration mail, etc. received the notice of the disposition in this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and the above notice of tax payment was legally delivered to the plaintiff, so long as the above notice of tax payment was not returned later, the above notice of tax

(b) Related statutes;

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

Article 12 (Effectuation of Service of Framework Act on National Taxes)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in part of the testimony set forth in Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6-8, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-2, and 8, and witness ○○, and Go○○○○○○. Any of the testimony set forth in Eul’s evidence Nos. 7, 9, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 10-1 and 3 are not interfered with, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) On August 25, 2003, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report on resident registration with 00 ○○○○○ apartment, 000 00 dong, where ○○○○○○, where ○○○, working as a subordinate employee of the Plaintiff, and thereafter had the instant apartment as a resident registration address from that time until February 12, 2004, but did not have actually resided in the instant apartment during the said period.

(2) On October 6, 2003, the Defendant received the instant tax payment notice to the ○○○○○ Office in order to serve the Plaintiff with the instant tax payment notice, and the ○○○ Office sent the instant tax payment notice to the ○○○○ Office having the jurisdiction over the instant apartment unit on the same day.

(3) On October 8, 2003, when a member of the ○○ post office was in charge of delivering mail to the above apartment complex, he visited the apartment complex of this case for the purpose of delivering the instant tax payment notice to the Plaintiff on or around October 8, 2003. However, on the entrance, he did not have any seal within the house, attached the notice of the instant tax payment notice to the sender, the addressee, the delivery date, the delivery time, and the time of the delivery of the instant tax payment notice to the Plaintiff, where the instant tax payment notice was not delivered for three days at the ○ post office, and the mail delivery notice to the sender was returned to the sender. In order to continue to deliver the mail, he did not return it to the Defendant.

(4) However, the high ○○ had not received a request from the Plaintiff to leave apartment security guards a postal item delivered to the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff directly talks with or via telephone conversations.

(5) The security guards in the apartment complex, including Kim○, have comprehensively delegated the authority to receive special postal items such as registered postal items in advance to apartment residents, or requested to receive special postal items such as registered postal items on behalf of them through telephone communications whenever necessary, etc., but have received and stored special postal items such as registered postal items sent in front of the resident on behalf of the apartment residents, and have refused to receive them for special postal items such as registered postal items sent in front of the resident on behalf of the apartment residents.

On the other hand, on June 2, 2004, Kim ○ issued a written confirmation to the public official in charge of ○○○○○’s ○○○○’s ○○○○○, that the Plaintiff, who resides in the apartment of this case, requested the post office staff to search for the mail in the apartment guard room because he did not have his house at his ordinary seat, and that he received the instant tax payment notice from ○○ on behalf of the Plaintiff.

D. Determination

(1) Articles 8(1) and 12(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that the document under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts shall take effect when it reaches the person to be served with the document, and where the person to be served with the document, such as a person liable for duty payment, who is the other party to the tax disposition, has expressly or implicitly delegated the right to receive the document, the delegated person shall be deemed to have received the document and lawfully served the document on the person to be served with the document. The delegated person is not necessarily required to be an employee or a person living with the delegated person, and where special mail, such as ordinary mail or registered mail, is delivered on the apartment in which the taxpayer resides, and the apartment security guard has received and delivered the document to the resident. If there was no objection against the method of delivering the document, it is reasonable to deem that the resident of the apartment house residing by the taxpayer has implicitly delegated the right to receive the registration mail to the security guard (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du164, Jul. 1, 2000).

(2) Therefore, the plaintiff is an addressee, and (a) the plaintiff explicitly makes the plaintiff to Kim ○-○.

As to whether ○○○○○○ delegated the authority to receive special postal items, the witness’s testimony that corresponds thereto is difficult. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff requested ○○○○○○○○ to leave the instant postal items to the apartment guard room. Kim○○○ received the registered postal items delivered to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff after hearing the above request from ○○○○○, and the Plaintiff did not have resided in the instant apartment, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. (B) Whether the Plaintiff delegated the authority to receive special postal items, such as registered postal items, to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which corresponds thereto, to the fact that it is difficult to recognize that the instant apartment items were lawfully delivered to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant apartment items were delivered to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

(3) Therefore, the tax notice of this case did not have effect because it did not reach the plaintiff entitled to receive the notice, and as long as the tax notice of this case does not take effect, it is reasonable to deem that the disposition of this case is invalid because it does not take effect externally.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of nullity of the disposition of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu26238 ( November 30, 2006)]

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On October 6, 2003, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 144,205,864 for the year 200 against the Plaintiff and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 6,129,333 for the year 2001 are all null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning this case is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 1, 2, and 3 of the Act.

(a) Section 3-c. (6) of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows:

(2) First, as to whether the Plaintiff delegated the right to receive special postal items, such as a registered postal item with the Plaintiff to Kim ○○○○, an apartment security guard’s testimony in the statement and trial of Eul evidence No. 6 (written confirmation), which seems consistent with this, was made. The contents of such testimony are as follows: (a) a person living in the street between 204 and 205 dong and 1006 dong 206 (hereinafter “resident of the apartment of this case”) was about to see himself as an apartment security guard, and the apartment security guard was about to see that the resident of this case was about to ○○○○○○, who was in custody due to frequent registered postal items; (b) it is difficult for ○○○○ to receive a tax payment notice instead of the instant disposition; (c) in light of the fact that the Plaintiff or the witness of this case was not directly entrusted with the instant postal items and there was no contradiction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to ○○○○○○, and there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff had received a tax payment notice.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see that the person who actually resides in the place of resident registration was entrusted with the authority to receive the service of the person who actually resides in the place of resident registration, and even if the person does not actually reside in the place of resident registration, it cannot be presumed that the mail sent by the method of registration is delivered to the person who actually resides in the place of resident registration, and in such a case, the tax authority must prove the arrival of the mail (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8977, Feb. 13, 1998). Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff entrusted the authority to receive the service of the document to ○○○, who is the actual resident of the apartment of this case, solely because the Plaintiff did not actually reside in the apartment of this case, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff delegated the authority to receive the service of the document to ○○○, and there is no other evidence to support the fact that the tax notice of this case sent by registered mail was not returned or that the security guard received it only."

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.