The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that one of the grounds for service by public notice shall be “where a person prescribed by Article 10(4) is unable to serve a document by registered mail but return to the addressee’s absence, etc., as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “Where it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date because the document was served by registered mail but the addressee’s absence is returned,” and Article 11(1)2 provides, “Where the document is served by public notice at least twice by the due date for payment, but it is difficult to serve a document by the due date for payment due to the absence of the addressee.”

Considering the purport of the service by public notice system under Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the fact that allowing service by public notice may excessively infringe on the right to a trial under Article 27(1) of the Constitution, etc., it is reasonable to interpret that “the absence of the recipient” under Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7-2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes leaves the place where the taxpayer is to be served for a long time and there is an obstacle to the exercise of taxation authority

(2) On October 6, 200, according to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court: (a) determined the transfer income tax for the year of 2009 on March 2, 201, and then sent a tax payment notice to Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, the Plaintiff’s domicile, by registered mail on two occasions; (b) the Defendant’s public official in charge of the Defendant’s domicile was returned as a closed language absence; and (c) the Defendant’s public official in charge was on May 6, 201 and May 9, 2011.