If a person to receive a document is not present at the place of service, such document may be served on a person who can make reasonable judgement as a person living together with the person to receive the document.

If a person to receive a document is not present at the place where the document is to be served, it may be served to such employee, worker, or cohabitant who is entitled to make reasonable judgement.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017 Ghana 5219105 Undue gains

Park ○

Korea

oly 2019.12

2019.06

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 181,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 28, 2017 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 15% interest per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

On June 1, 2010, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Defendant’s jurisdiction imposed and notified the Plaintiff the global income tax of KRW 5,454,680 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”). ② On December 1, 2010, the head of the tax office imposed and notified the global income tax of KRW 44,935,220 (hereinafter “instant Disposition”) and ③ on December 2, 201, imposed and notified the global income tax of KRW 126,502,010 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 3”).

○ After that, on October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 31,00,000,000 won as global income and 100,000,000,000 won as global income, and 50,000,000 won as of October 27, 2017 (=31,000,0000 + + 100,000,000 won + 50,000,000 won as global income) to the Defendant (hereinafter “the above aggregate amount”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Main assertion

이 사건 납부금액은 이 사건 제1, 2 각 처분에 따라 2008년 및 2009년 귀속 종합소득세로 납부한 것이다. 이 사건 제1 처분 당시 원고가 ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 63 ○○(이하 '○○아파트'라 한다) ○○동 ○○호에 전입신고를 하여두었지만 실제로는 □□시 □□구 □□동 소재 아파트에 거주하고 있었는바, 피고의 주장에 의하더라도 원고의 실제 거주지도 아닌 ○○마을아파트 소속 경비원에게 이 사건 제1 처분의 납세고지서를 송달하였다는 것이다. 또한 이 사건 제2 처분 당시 원고가 ○○시 ○○구 △△동 121 △△아파트(이하 '△△아파트'라 한다) △△동 △△호에 전입신고를 하여두었지만 실제로는 □□시 □□구 ▲▲동 소재 빌라에 거주하고 있었는바, 피고의 주장에 의하더라도 원고의 실제 거주지도 아닌 △△아파트 소속 경비원에게 이 사건 제2 처분의 납세고지서를 송달하였다는 것이다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not lawfully receive a tax payment notice under each of the dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case. Thus, each of the dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case is null and void because its defect is serious and clear. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to return the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff for global income for 2008 and 209, based on the aforementioned dispositions.

B. Preliminary assertion

가사 이 사건 납부금액이 이 사건 제3 처분에 따른 2010년 귀속 종합소득세로 납부된 것으로 처리되었다고 하더라도, ① 2008년 및 2009년 귀속 종합소득세가 아직 납부되지 아니하여 가산금이 부과되고 있는 상태에서 ○○세무서장이 민법상 법정변제충당의 법리와 달리 이 사건 납부금액을 2010년 귀속 종합소득세에 먼저 충당한 것은 원고의 변제이익을 해하는 것으로서 위법하고, ② 또한 이 사건 제3처분 당시 실제로는 원고가 주민등록상 주소지가 아니라 □□시 ◇◇구 ◇◇동 799 ◇◇빌리지 ◇◇호(이하 '◇◇빌리지'라 한다)에 거주하고 있었는데, 피고의 주장에 의하더라도 원고의 실제 주거지가 아닌 주민등록상 주소지에서, 원고의 동거인이 아닌 외조모 박◆◆에게 이 사건 제3 처분의 납세고지서를 송달하였다는 것인바, 원고가 그 고지서를 적법하게 송달받은 바 없다.

Therefore, the disposition No. 3 of this case is null and void because its defect is serious and clear, and the defendant is obligated to return the amount to be paid to the plaintiff as global income tax for the year 2010 based on the above disposition as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main argument

First of all, when the purport of the argument is added to each statement in the evidence Nos. 4, 4, and 3, the plaintiff himself/herself designated as global income tax for October 12, 2017 and paid the total amount of KRW 181,00,000 by online means of payment as of October 12, 2017 and on the 27th of the same month. The amount to be paid in this case is appropriated for part of the total amount of notified global income tax for 2010 and the additional amount incurred until the time of the payment, and 40,378,270 won is remaining as the unpaid amount of global income tax for 2010. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid the amount to be paid in this case as global income for 208 and 209, the plaintiff's primary assertion is without merit as to whether each tax notice for global income tax for 2010 was lawfully served.

B. Determination as to the conjunctive assertion

1) As to whether ○○ Head of the tax office infringes on the Plaintiff’s interest in repayment by satisfaction of the claim (the Plaintiff’s claim No. 2-b-(i)

The fact that the Plaintiff, at the time of the online payment of the instant payment amount, voluntarily designated and paid as global income tax for 2010 as global income tax for 2010 is identical to that recognized in Article 3-A. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion that the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Defendant’s control arbitrarily appropriated the instant payment amount for global income tax for 2010, is without merit, without examining the remainder

2) Whether the third disposition of this case is invalid due to unlawful service of a tax payment notice (the plaintiff's above 2-2)

With respect to B-B)

A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "documents prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office (to be omitted) of the person in whose name the documents are to be served, and Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "a service of documents under Article 8 shall be made by means of delivery, mail or electronic delivery," and the main sentence of paragraph (2) provides that "a service of documents related to notification, demand, disposition for arrears or an order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts shall be made by registered mail," and Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that "in cases of paragraph (2) of this Act, if a person to be served is not present at the place where the documents are to be served, such documents may be served on the person to be served at the place where the documents are to be served, or (hereinafter omitted)".

In a case where the delivery of a tax notice on a taxation disposition violates the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and its validity does not take effect, such taxation disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995). The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that there was no delivery of a tax notice or unlawful assertion in a lawsuit claiming that the defective administrative disposition is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1260, Jun. 1, 2001). Unless there are special circumstances such as the return of a postal item sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed that a postal item was delivered to an addressee at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da38322, Feb. 25, 1997). However, if an addressee or his family member does not actually reside in the resident’s domicile, it is difficult to deem that the resident was delegated to receive the registered domicile by means.

B) Specific determination

이 사건의 경우, 을 2, 4, 5호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 합하여 보면, 원고와 그 외조모 박◆◆은 원래 주민등록상 주소가 모두 ○○마을아파트 ○○동 ○○호였는데 박◆◆은 2010. 10. 26.에, 원고는 그 며칠 후인 2010. 11. 2. △△아파트△△동 △△호로 전입신고를 하였던 사실, 위 2010. 11. 2. 그 주소지의 세대주는 박◆◆에서 원고로 변경된 사실, ○○세무서장은 2011. 12. 7. 원고의 위 주민등록상 주소지인 △△아파트 △△동 △△호로 이 사건 제3 처분의 납세고지서를 등기우편으로 발송하였는데 2011. 12. 10. 박◆◆이 위 주소지에서 위 납세고지서를 수령하였고, 반송된 바는 없는 사실, 박◆◆은 2012. 5. 7. 시 읍 65, 동 호로 전출하였고, 원고도 그 직후인 2012. 5. 14. 위 박◆◆과 같은 주소지로 전출한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고 산하 ○○세무서장이 원고에게 발송한 이 사건 제3 처분의 납세고지서는 원고의 주소지에서 그 외조모인 박◆◆이 원고의 동거인 또는 원고로부터 송달 수령권을 위임받은 사람의 자격으로 위 고지서를 수령함으로써 적법하게 송달된 것으로 판단되고, 그와 달리 위 송달 당시 원고가 실제로는 △△아파트에 거주하고 있지 아니하면서 전입신고만 해둔 상태였다는 점에 관하여, 갑 6, 8, 9호증의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하며[갑 6, 9호증(각 사실확인서)의 각 기재는 위 송달 당시인 2011. 12. 초 무렵 원고의 실제 거주지에 관한 내용도 아니다],달리 그 점을 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion that the disposition No. 3 of this case was void as a matter of course by the improper service of the tax payment notice is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.