Service by public notice of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of service by public notice.

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was absent from his domicile for a long time as at the time of service by public notice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, service by public notice on the instant disposition is inappropriate due to the failure to meet the requirements for service by public notice as provided in Article 11(1)3

Articles 8 and 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Gudan931 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

*

O Head of tax office

September 12, 2018

October 17, 2018

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 52,390,320 (including additional tax) for the year 201 owed to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2017 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 30, 202, the Plaintiff acquired 695 square meters prior to ○○○○○○○○○○○○-○○○○○○○, but transferred on June 15, 201 and on June 30, 2011, on the ground that it was self-owned farmland for at least eight years under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, applied the provision on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax (25,898,310 won) to the self-owned farmland. On February 6, 2002, the Plaintiff applied for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax (25,898,310 won) by applying the provision on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-owned farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. On September 15, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax to ○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○-○○-2, 3222 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”).

B. After checking the field on May 4, 2012 by the head of Magsung Tax Office at the time of the competent agency, the Plaintiff paid a revised return on July 31, 2012 at the rate of the reduced or exempted area for both lands, with 50% each. However, on September 5, 2012, the head of Magsung Tax Office denied the reduction or exemption for the entire land area, and notified the revision of the capital gains tax.

C. After ○○○do changed the jurisdiction of the Defendant on April 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to correct the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax of KRW 120,861,381 (including additional tax, and KRW 52,390,326) for the year 201, on April 28, 2017, on the ground that 201 was not farmland at the time of the instant sale, the Defendant served a notice of tax payment on May 12, 2017.

D. On August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation of service by publication

The Defendant served a tax notice on the Plaintiff while serving the instant disposition. The instant disposition was unlawful since the service by public notice did not meet the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (the long-term deviation from the place to be served).

(ii) farmland cultivated for a period of not less than eight years;

The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land from February 23, 2002 to September 15, 201, which was the date of the instant purchase to September 201, 201. Since the instant land was farmland at the time of the instant purchase and sale, the reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act ought to be applied.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination as to whether service by public notice is illegal

1) Applicable legal principles

Any taxation for which a tax notice has not been served lawfully on the other party is invalid due to any defect in the requirements for the validity of the taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu332, May 9, 1984; 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995). The burden of proving whether service by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice is, in principle, imposed on the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu4134, Oct. 14, 1994; 96Nu3562, Jun. 28, 1

Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any case prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where a person under Article 10(4) fails to serve a document at a place where the document is to be served by registered mail as one of the reasons for service by public notice, and where the document may be served by public notice due to the absence of the recipient" under the delegation of the above provision, "where it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date because the document is served by registered mail but the document is returned because the addressee is absent" under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. "Article 11(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the document is served by public notice at least twice in the absence of the recipient, but it is deemed difficult to serve a document within the due date due to the absence of the recipient" under Article 11(1)3 of the same Act. "Place to serve a document by public notice" refers to the domicile, residence, place of business or office of a taxpayer within a long period of time prescribed by a good manager (see Supreme Court Decision 2020Du1414.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) At the time of acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff moved to ○○○○○-○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on June 4, 2003, the Plaintiff moved to ○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on the same day on the same day on the same day on September 15, 2009, but moved to ○○○○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant domicile”).

B) At the time of August 29, 2011, as of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was prepared a self-management farmer’s confirmation confirming that the Plaintiff resided in the instant domicile on the same day while living in the instant domicile, and that of the same Ri resident, **, * South * even around July 2012, written a self-management farmer’s confirmation of farming facts with the same content.

C) On May 1, 2017, the Defendant sent a tax payment notice (payment period: May 27, 2017) following the instant disposition by registered mail (registration number: 1*********************). The houseman visited the instant domicile on May 4, 2017; 8th, and 10th, of the same month; he was unable to send each closed door door, but was kept without return for the lapse of the storage period on May 15, 2017; and was disposed of on July 3, 2017.

D) On May 12, 2017, △△△△△△△△, a public official affiliated with the Defendant, visited the instant domicile and attempted to deliver a notice to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was unable to reach the date of the visit, the reason for the visit, the reason for the visit, the business trip, the phone number of the business trip, etc., was attached to the apartment door of the instant apartment site.

E) On May 12, 2017, the Defendant served a tax payment notice issued on June 10, 2017 by notice.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including the number with each number), Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was absent from the domicile of this case for a long time at the time of service by public notice only with the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the service by public notice on the instant disposition was unlawful as it did not meet the requirements for service by public notice as prescribed in Article 11(1)3

As above, the disposition of this case is null and void unless the service by public notice of tax payment following the disposition of this case is illegal and void, and the disposition of this case is revoked (as long as the plaintiff's assertion on this part is recognized, no further determination is made as to the remaining assertion) in the sense of declaring it

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is based, and it is so accepted and decided as per Disposition.