Whether notice of taxation is served or not.

Where a postal item is sent by means of registration, it may be presumed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time, unless there is a counter-proof of special circumstances, such as the loss or return of the postal item in the Do.

Articles 8 and 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cheongju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-591 ( October 18, 2018)

AA

Head of Dong Tax Office

December 21, 2017

8.01.18

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 491,040,890 for the Plaintiff on January 6, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

On January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff did not report corporate tax for the business year of 2013 while running a public water storage fish farming business at the 787th place in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do. On January 6, 2015, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 491,040,890 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

According to the purport of the whole statement and arguments of No. 6, No. 7, and No. 1, the defendant sent a tax notice of this case to "OO-gu No. 73, 602 (O-O apartment, hereinafter "A's domicile") registered by registered mail at the time of the plaintiff representative director's domicile at the time of the defendant's receipt of the above apartment security guards at January 12, 2015, and deliver it to AA... Thus, since the plaintiff representative director, who received the tax notice through BB, presumed to have been implicitly delegated the authority to receive the tax notice, etc., the plaintiff representative director AA, who received the tax notice, was aware of the fact that the disposition of this case was made at the time of that time, after the lapse of 90 days thereafter, the objection of this case must be raised at November 25, 2016, which was unlawful, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

[On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Defendant could not file a prior notice of taxation with the Plaintiff. However, if a postal item was sent by means of registration, it may be presumed that it was delivered to the addressee at that time unless there is any counter-proof of special circumstances, such as that it was lost or returned during the process of registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du60577, Mar. 9, 2017). According to the purport of Articles 2 through 5 and 8, the Plaintiff’s resident registration was made in the AA’s address from November 12, 2013 to May 14, 2017, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have lawfully sent the notice of taxation on the instant disposition to the representative director at the address of the first instance on December 4, 2014, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s prior notice of taxation was not a legitimate one of the causes for the revocation of the instant disposition, which was sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s 2120th notice of taxation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.