[1] The meaning of "where the address or the business office is not evident" under Article 11 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

[2] The case holding that service by public notice is lawful on the ground that the tax authority conducted a survey of the address of the receiver with due care as a good manager but did not know such fact

[1] Article 11 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996) refers to a case where the tax authority's domicile or place of business of a person subject to service with due care and due care as a good manager investigates the domicile or place of business of a person subject to service, but its address or place of business cannot be known.

[2] The case holding that service by public notice is lawful on the ground that the tax authority conducted a survey of the address of the receiver with due care as a good manager but did not know such fact

[1] Article 11 (1) 3 (see current Article 11 (1) 2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996) / [2] Article 11 (1) 3 (see current Article 11 (1) 2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu375 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1039) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4246 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2438) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7146 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2696), Supreme Court Decision 92Da35431 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong193, 459), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4134 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3019), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu197598 delivered on June 12, 1998 (GongGong1975985 delivered on June 14, 199)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Ba-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office

Busan High Court Decision 98Nu2652 delivered on October 22, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same) refers to cases where the address or place of business of a person who is obliged to receive service with due care and due care as a good manager was investigated, but the address or place of business cannot be identified (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17575, Jun. 12, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on May 1, 1996, the defendant sent a tax notice to the non-party 1 by registered mail, which is the domicile of the non-party 1's resident registration address. However, on the 10th of the same month, the above tax notice was returned to the non-party 2, who is an employee belonging to the defendant, sent a business trip to the non-party 1 as the management office of the apartment of this case on the same day, and asked the non-party 1 to find out whether the above non-party 1 was a resident of the apartment of this case. However, the non-party 1 did not know the director's address or contact address before the above non-party 1 appear, and the non-party 2 attempted to contact the plaintiff's house through the non-party 1's personal seal phone, but did not know that the non-party 1's address was the non-party 1's name and contact with the above non-party 1's office, and the defendant did not know the above non-party 1's address and contact.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the records, since the defendant is recognized to legally publicly notify the above tax payment notice to the non-party 1 pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there is no error of law by omission of judgment or misapprehension of legal principles as to the effective requirements of service by public notice in the court below which judged to

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)