Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap14552 (Law No. 14, 2012)

A written notice of tax payment to a person who is confined in prison shall be served upon his/her domicile, and shall not be served upon the warden.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) If a tax payment notice was sent by registered mail but a tax payment notice is deemed difficult to serve by the payment deadline as the address is returned, service by public notice shall be lawful, and a tax payment notice for a person who is confined in prison shall also be served at his/her domicile, and shall not be served at the prison warden.

2012Nu31726 Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax

IsaA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap14552 decided September 14, 2012

April 17, 2013

May 1, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant confirmed that each disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 000 in total amount of KRW 000 in 2000, KRW 2000 in 200 in the plaintiff on December 3, 2004, and KRW 000 in 1 January 2001, and KRW 000 in 200 in 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning, except for the following parts among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Jin part

A. 1. Of the developments of the disposition, the notice of this case was served in accordance with Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 7-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) by public notice under Article 11(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. 2. Determination of the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the following:

2) The tax payment notice of this case was sent by registered mail on December 3, 2004, but it was difficult for the defendant to serve the tax payment notice of this case until December 31, 2004 because it was returned to the plaintiff's "the plaintiff's name of address dissipation", and the tax payment notice of this case was sent by the public notice of this case on December 24, 2004, and it is judged that it satisfies the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and (2) even if the plaintiff's assertion that the tax payment notice of this case was sent to prisons at the time of the delivery of the tax payment notice of this case, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's duty to serve the tax payment notice of this case on the person who was sent to prisons was sent to prisons as his domicile pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that it is not reasonable to see that the plaintiff's duty to serve the tax payment notice of this case on the plaintiff's domicile.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.