Whether a tax notice on imposition is lawful;

The fact that the preservation period of documents, such as a tax notice, and the period of request for delivery of registered mail is more than five years and that there is no reason attributable to the defendant not being served with the notice of tax payment and related documents cannot be deemed to exist.

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax for the second period of March 9, 200 on the Plaintiff, KRW 25,376,110 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 199, KRW 18,725,810 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 199, January 3, 2002, KRW 248,260 for the first year of June 2, 200, KRW 260 for the first period of value-added tax for the first period of October 4, 200, KRW 5,967,790 for the first period of 200, KRW 2515,590 for the global income tax for the year 199, KRW 18,500 for the global income tax for the year 200, KRW 300 for the first period of taxation for the global income tax for the year 200 for each year 3 years 2005.8

2. On September 21, 2006, the attachment disposition taken by the Defendant on September 21, 2006 against the Plaintiff’s insurance claim (securities number: A) and against the ○○ Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on each insurance claim (securities number: B, C, and D) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 12, 199 to June 14, 200, the Defendant: (a) was a person who runs aggregate wholesale business in the name of "○○-4,00 Dong," and (b) was not paid value-added tax and comprehensive income tax; (c) obtained processing tax invoices; or (d) omitted sales; (d) was imposed 25,376,10 won for the second five years of 199 (hereinafter referred to as "taxation"); (d) 30.5 years of global income for the second five years of 199 (hereinafter referred to as "tax imposition"); (e) 18,725,810 won for the second five years of 199 (hereinafter referred to as "tax imposition disposition"); (e) 20.7 years of 9 years of 20; (e) 9 years of 20 years of 20; and (e) 9 years of 20.9 years of 20 years of 205 of 199.2

B. On September 21, 2006, the Defendant seized each insurance claim (securities number A) against the Plaintiff’s ○○ Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and each insurance claim (securities number: B, C, and D) against the ○○ Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

C. On July 26, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions and attachment dispositions, but was dismissed on October 11, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 5, 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

Article 11 (Service by Public Notice for Framework Act on National Taxes)

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is effective

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In 199 and 200, the Plaintiff did not engage in a business for which value-added tax was paid in 199 and 200, and at that time, Nonparty 1 operated a business under the trade name of “○○ Industry by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.” In this regard, each of the instant dispositions is null and void as a matter of course, and since the Defendant was unable to deliver documents, such as tax payment notice, to the Plaintiff while imposing each of the instant dispositions, each of the instant dispositions is null and void.

B. Determination as to the argument about the crime

(1) In order for a taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient. The defect is objectively apparent in violation of the important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations that form the basis for the taxation in question in a teleological context and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, a taxation conducted by a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations subject to taxation at the same time should be deemed to have a significant and obvious defect. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to find that the legal relations or factual relations that are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, if it is apparent only after an accurate investigation of the facts, it cannot be deemed to have been apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have been null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da24968, Jul. 10, 2001).

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 3, evidence No. 2-1 to 5 of evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 2-1 to ○○ witness testimony, the non-party scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scamscam scam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscams, and the plaintiff's business registration cannot be found to have been issued under the above part of the plaintiff's scam scam scam scam.

C. Judgment as to the assertion of Korea War

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 12, on August 27, 1999, the plaintiff filed a move-in report of ○○○○-4 ○○○○○○-1006, 1006, on November 27, 2000, which was revoked ex officio due to the move-in without permission, was re-registered on January 2, 2001, and was re-registered at the above domicile on January 12, 2001, and on June 12, 2003, the plaintiff filed a move-in report of ○○○-12, Dong-dong on June 12, 2003.

(2) (1) Whether a notice of imposition is served

In light of the purport of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Postal Service Act, where a postal item is sent by registered mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee at that time unless there are special circumstances, such as return (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13127, Dec. 11, 1992); according to the statement No. 5-1 and No. 9-1, a document No. 5-1, a document No. 1 of which the Plaintiff is the addressee; (1) the notice of tax imposition was sent to the post office on March 15, 200 and was not sent to the Plaintiff by registered mail; (2) the notice of tax imposition was not sent to the Plaintiff on March 9, 200; (3) the date of decision on collection by the Integrated Management System of the National Tax Service on the collection of the National Tax Service; (4) the notice number "O-O-OO" column; and (4) each notice of tax payment was lawfully written to the Plaintiff.

According to the statement of Eul evidence 4-2 (the plaintiff's name that is recognized as the plaintiff's writing by the testimony of the receipt and the witness Kim ○, is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document) of Eul evidence 4-2 (the plaintiff's name is presumed to be the plaintiff's writing, and the plaintiff can be found to have received each tax notice regarding each disposition. The above tax notice was delivered lawfully to

(4) (3) Whether a notice of tax imposition is served.

According to the purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 5-2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 5-3, the determination on collection of the integrated tax management system by the National Tax Service and the third tax notice by June 30, 200 can be recognized as having been served by public notice on August 31, 200. Considering the Plaintiff’s resident registration transfer report situation as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that each tax notice by public notice was served lawfully on the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

(5) (4) Whether a notice of tax payment is served

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 5-3 of the evidence Nos. 4 and 9-3, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) on Nov. 8, 2001, the notice of the imposition was sent by registered mail to the Plaintiff; (b) on Oct. 4, 2001, the National Tax Service’s decision-making date on the collection of the integrated management system of the National Tax Service, the notice number column was written as Y; and (c) on whether the notice number was in arrears, the notice number column was written as Y; (d) on May 4, 2001, the notice number was written as ○-○○-○; (d) on May 1, 2006, the delivery of the document was not possible; and (e) on May 20, 2006, the delivery of the document or the notice of tax payment was not lawfully sent to the Plaintiff.

According to the statement No. 5-7 of the evidence No. 5-7, it can be acknowledged that the notice of tax payment regarding the decision of collection by the National Tax Service set forth in the Integrated Management System was served, and barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the above notice of tax payment was served lawfully on the Plaintiff.

(7) Sub-determination

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking confirmation of the invalidity thereof, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992). In this case, unless otherwise asserted and prove that there were special circumstances where the plaintiff was unable to receive each tax notice of the disposition of this case, each of the above dispositions of this case shall be deemed to have been legally served as above.

4. Whether the seizure disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As long as not only documents related to each of the dispositions of this case but also documents related to the payment notice and delinquency, the seizure disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

However, as seen earlier, the notice of each of the instant dispositions was lawfully served on the Plaintiff, and according to the statement in the Evidence Nos. 5-1 through 7 of the Evidence No. 5-7, it is recognized that the amount of each of the instant dispositions was fully delinquent under the National Tax Service Integrated Management System’s decision on collection by the National Tax Service, and according to the relevant statutes, even if the Plaintiff, a delinquent taxpayer, was not notified of the instant disposition, considering that the pertinent disposition did not affect the validity of the attachment disposition, the attachment disposition of this case is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.