Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap24280

Whether it is legitimate to serve a notice issued by a taxpayer at the detention center;

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) The notice of tax payment must be served on the domicile of the resident and can be deemed to have been received by delegation of authority explicitly or implicitly from the plaintiff in the situation where the plaintiff is confined in the detention house. Objections and requests for adjudication after the lapse of 90 days from the date of service are illegal, and the lawsuit of this case is also unlawful.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Nu49615 global income and revocation of disposition

o

Head of △ District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap24280 decided March 28, 2014

October 30, 2014

November 20, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

제1심 판결을취소한다.피고가20**.**.**.원고에게한2006년종합소득세 @@@원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분을 취소한다(원고는 항소심에서 위와 같이 처분 일자를 정정하였다).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court shall explain in this decision are as follows:

In addition to those written by section 2, administrative litigation is the same as the written reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) The third part of the judgment of the court of the first instance "20*.*.*...*...." was written by the second part of the judgment of the court of the first instance "20*.*.*.*...."

나. 제1심 판결문 제6쪽 제9~10행의 "&&&의 확인서, □□세무서 담당공무원 @@@이 보관 중이던 ***의 명함 및 메모내용이 이를 뒷받침하고 있는 점" 부분을 "&&&의 확인서(을 제15호증), □□세무서 담당공무원 @@@이 보관 중이던 ***의 명함 및 메모내용(을 제14호증의 2)이 이를 뒷받침하고 있는 점"이라고 고쳐 쓴다.

C. Since the part of the 6th 21th 21th 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful, since the lawsuit of this case was not "," it is unlawful (the lawsuit of this case is deemed unlawful since it could be seen that the lawsuit of this case had gone through legitimate procedures before the court of first instance, the whole evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the circumstances of its assertion alone are alone acquired only in the name of the

It is insufficient to conclude that there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other objective evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the basis of the premise also accepted.

In addition, in this case where only the plaintiff appealed, as long as the decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim cannot be revoked and the decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim cannot be rendered, the decision to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal is not different in the conclusion to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal."

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.