Service shall take effect when the resident of the place of resident registration has received a tax payment notice.

It is reasonable to view that the period in which the moving-in report was made is legally delivered at the time when the resident of the moving-in site receives a tax payment notice as it expressly or implicitly delegated the right to receive postal items or other documents, such as a tax payment notice to the resident.

Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

OO8Guhap5108 Invalidity of the imposition of gift tax

AA

CC director of the tax office

2019.07.04

2019.07.25

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 61,536,00 against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2005 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

On April 10, 2002, the Defendant imposed a gift tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) of KRW 61,536,000 on August 10, 2005 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the representative director of the OOOOOOO, a title trust with 50,000 shares of OOOOOO and donated the value of the property to the Plaintiff on August 10, 2005 pursuant to Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002) with the taxable value of the gift tax of KRW 250,00,000 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is invalidated;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around August 2005 to September 9, 2005, the Plaintiff resided with his wife and other family members at OO-O apartment O-O apartment OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-(hereinafter referred to as "O-O-dong address of this case"). Since the Plaintiff did not receive a tax notice from the Defendant at the time, the instant disposition is null and void.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Around August 10, 2005, the Defendant sent a tax payment notice of the instant disposition by registered mail at the domicile of the instant case (the due date of August 31, 2005), and around that time, the relevant mail was returned. The Defendant sent a tax payment notice of the instant disposition (the due date of September 10, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax payment notice”) to the domicile of the instant case by registered mail at the domicile of the instant case.

2) The details of changes in address on the resident registration of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife are as indicated below (the name of apartment, the name of Dong and Dong are omitted). JeonO made a move-in report to the domicile of this case on August 4, 2004, and on August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to the spouse of JeonOO as the spouse of the householder at the domicile of this case on August 18, 2004. JeonO completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 19, 2004 as to OO apartment OOOO OO No No. 598038 square meters (59.8038 square meters) in the domicile of this case on May 15, 2002.

JeonO

Address of the date of transfer;

O-O-O on June 12, 2003 O-O on May 26, 2003

on March 31, 2004OOO of O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong on April 8, 2004

on April 24, 2004OOO44 O-dong O-dong O4

on May 3, 2004O-OO of O-dong O-O

On August 18, 2004, the domicile of this case on August 4, 2004

on April 11, 2007OO-O of O-dong O-O

On January 23, 2008, the domicile of this case

O-O-O on October 31, 2008, O-dong O-O on December 29, 2008 O-O on October 31, 2008

The domicile of this case on October 26, 2010 at the domicile of this case on October 26, 2010

3) A written confirmation of hospitalization (Evidence 5 of the formerO on July 27, 2005) states the address of the formerO as the domicile of the formerO, and the domicile of the child care center (Evidence 4 of the name KimO) around August 16, 2005, which is the child of the plaintiff and the formerO, is entered in the family register of the child care center (Evidence 4 of the former name KimO) as the domicile of the formerO. The rent and the management fee of the multi-family house located in the OO's domicile were transferred from the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff from May 18, 2005 to the deposit account in the name of the HaO, the owner of the multi-family house, from March 15, 2007 (Evidence 16 of the same).

4) On August 3, 2004, the plaintiff KimO, a birth report for resident registration, was made to the domicile of this case.

On August 4, 2004, the former members of the OO located at the domicile of this case were combined, but on May 24, 2005, the first day of the move-in report for resident registration was made to OOO located at OO-dong at OO-dong on May 24, 2005, and on August 18, 2004, KimOO was made to the former members of the household at the domicile of this case, but on March 9, 2005, the move-in report for resident registration was made to OO-dong O-dong O-O-O. The first day of the move-in report was entered as the domicile of this case, and the address of this case was entered as the domicile of this case.

5) From November 28, 2005 to March 28, 2006, the Defendant seized OOO-O, O-O, O-O, and O-O-O land five times on five occasions as a result of the disposition on default related to the instant disposition. The Defendant provided information on the Plaintiff’s default of taxes to a credit information agency four times from November 10, 206 to January 9, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In the case of an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeks the confirmation of invalidity thereof,

Inasmuch as an administrative disposition is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that the service of a tax notice was not effective in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the service of a tax notice on the grounds that the service of a tax notice did not take effect due to the failure to receive a tax notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

In a case where a postal item is sent by means of registration, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time. However, even if the addressee does not actually reside at his/her resident registration address, it cannot be presumed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee. In such a case, the tax authority should prove the arrival of the postal item (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8977, Feb. 13, 1998). Meanwhile, in a case where the recipient of the document, such as a person liable for duty payment, etc., who is the other party to a tax disposition, has expressly or explicitly delegated the authority to receive the postal item or other documents to receive the said document to another person, the delegated person shall be deemed to have duly delivered the relevant document to the person who received the document, and the delegated person with the authority to receive such document does not necessarily need to be an employee of the delegating person or a person living together with the delegated person

2) In the above facts, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the certificate of hospitalization of MaO on July 27, 2005, the plaintiff's wife, and the name of MaO and KimO on the daily life register of MaO on August 16, 2005, the plaintiff's child, entered the address of OO and KimO as OO's domicile; (b) the rent and management fee of the multi-family house at the deposit account in the plaintiff's name from May 18, 2005 to March 15, 2007 were transferred to the deposit account in the HaO's name, the owner of which was the MaO's domicile; (c) the plaintiff's first place of residence and domicile at the MaO's domicile at the MaO's domicile at the time of Kim Jong-dong's domicile and his domicile at the time of the plaintiff's first place of residence; (d) the plaintiff did not appear to have been sent to the plaintiff by the registered mail at the time of this case.

However, even if deemed as above, ① the Plaintiff had, as its own necessity, received a resident registration transfer report from August 18, 2004 to April 11, 2007, the mail sent to his domicile on resident registration was sent to the instant domicile. ② Even with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s PO and O were residing in the instant domicile for about three years and six months from August 2004 to February 2008; ③ It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and AO received a tax transfer report from 2005 to 300,000 to 208, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had received a tax transfer report from 200,000 to 200,0000, including the Plaintiff’s O’s 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 from 28,000 to 20,000,000 to 20,000.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.