Electronic delivery of tax payment notices

The plaintiff filed an application for the electronic service of tax payment notice, and it is recognized that a tax payment notice was served by the national tax information and communications network, and that the notice is served lawfully by presenting it in the national tax information and communications network.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 27,490,390 on July 4, 2007 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are recognized by each description of Gap 1, 2, 10 evidence, Eul 2 through 6, and Eul 8, unless there is a dispute between the parties or by each description of Gap 1, 2, 10 evidence.

A. On July 10, 2003, the Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, obtained an import license from the Korea Food and Drug Administration, known by the Korea Food and Drug Administration as having efficacy in heart diseases in China, out of ○○○○.

B. On July 2, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply goods to ○○ Drugs Co., Ltd., a domestic distributor (hereinafter “○○ Drugs”).

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 140 million from ○○ drugs, and filed a value-added tax, etc. on KRW 127,272,727 of the value of supply. On June 20, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the value of supply as bonus of the Plaintiff’s representative director, and filed a tax return on KRW 27,490,390 of the earned income tax for the year 2004.

D. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the above labor income tax, the Defendant issued a tax notice of KRW 27,490,390, and additional tax KRW 2,49,120 to the Plaintiff on July 4, 2007.

E. On February 5, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed against the above duty payment notice and filed a request for examination of this case with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on February 25, 2008.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The plaintiff asserts that there is an error in calculating profits and omitting expenses in the imposition disposition of wage and salary income tax of this case. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it was filed without due process of the previous trial.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

C. Determination

(1) According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 of the evidence Nos. 1-1-2 and 7, the Plaintiff applied for electronic delivery of tax payment notice, etc. to the Defendant on Sep. 16, 2004. Accordingly, the Defendant is recognized to have served a tax payment notice on the earned income tax of this case via the national tax information and communications network on July 4, 2007. Accordingly, pursuant to this fact and Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it can be seen that the Defendant stored the above tax payment notice in the national tax information and communications network and served the Plaintiff

(2) In full view of the facts of recognition under the above 1.e. (1) and the relevant laws and regulations of the above 1.e. (b), the petition for review of this case is unlawful as it was filed by the Plaintiff with the lapse of 90 days after the Plaintiff received a tax payment notice of earned income tax of this case. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it did not go through lawful pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided as per Disposition without dismissal.