1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 14, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment 206 Dong 607, and the said real estate was transferred to C’s ownership on the ground of “sale by compulsory auction” on July 10, 2009.

B. On March 2, 2011, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 94,255,320 (including additional tax of KRW 20,74,697) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the year 2009, and served a notice of tax payment by public notice.

C. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on the ground of the lapse of the time limit for filing an objection, and subsequently filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision to dismiss an appeal for adjudication on the ground that the Plaintiff did not go through legitimate procedures for a prior trial.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. We examine the legality of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

According to the records, the first instance court and the second instance court determined that the Defendant’s service by public notice on May 19, 201 on the ground of “the absence of reception” constituted lawful service meeting the requirements, and thus, the service became effective on June 2, 201, 14 days after the date when the service was completed. Thus, the Plaintiff’s objection and request for trial filed after the lapse of 90 days from June 2, 201 is unlawful, and the lawsuit of this case based on it is also unlawful, as it did not go through legitimate procedure of the first instance.

Therefore, the judgment of remand cannot be deemed to have been confirmed to have left the place of residence for a long time due to the facts pertaining to the service of the instant tax notice. The lower court prior to remanding, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for service by public notice, thereby reversing the judgment of the lower court prior to remanding the case.