Whether the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as not going through legitimate pre-trial procedure

The defendant's assertion on the premise that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is a litigation seeking nullification of the disposition of this case in light of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim is without merit.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On May 31, 1994, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 61,872,580 and defense tax amounting to KRW 12,445,580 against the Plaintiff for the year 198 is null and void. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts as follows.

"The plaintiff, on May 31, 1994, was placed on the ground that he would be served with the notice of tax payment specified in the order (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") from the defendant on May 31, 1994, and the defendant intentionally carried out the above notice of tax payment due to the plaintiff's defects on the same day. However, according to Article 12 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the notice of tax payment shall take effect from the time when the person to be served with the notice of tax payment reaches the person to be served with the notice of tax payment. "the delivery" does not require the person to be served with the notice of tax payment, but it means the time when the other party's right to control comes into a situation where the other party can be known by social norms, and the above notice of tax payment enters the plaintiff's right within the plaintiff's control based on the above input. Therefore, the plaintiff's above notice of tax payment was served on May 31, 1994, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful until 30 days prior to the trial.

In a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of a tax imposition disposition, unlike the case of a lawsuit seeking the revocation, there is no application of the principle of administrative appeal transfer (see Article 38 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). The defendant's above assertion, which is premised on the application of this case, in light of the purport of the lawsuit and the cause of the claim, is obviously a litigation seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case, is without merit.

2. Determination on whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. Factual relations

아래 각 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑제1,5호증, 갑제4호증의1,2, 을제1,2호증의각1,2, 을제3호증, 을제4호증의1내지5의 각 기재와 증인 유ㅇㅇ, 손ㅇㅇ의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 이를 인정할 수 있고, 반증이 없다.

(1) 원고는 1988. 4. 27. ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ면 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇ번지 잡종지 286평방미터 및 같은 리 ㅇㅇ번지 잡종지 564평방미터를, 같은 해 5. 9. ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ면 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇ번지 임야 10,748.50평방미터를 각 양도하였다.

(2) 이에 피고는 1994. 5. 31. 원고가 부동산매매업자에 해당한다고 보아 원고에 대하여 주문 기재 종합소득세 및 방위세를 부과하기로 결정한데 이어 같은 날(그 부과의 제척기간 만료일이었다) 그 납세고지서를 작성하고 담당직원인 소외 손ㅇㅇ과 김ㅇㅇ를 시켜 위 납세고지서를 원고에게 송달하게 하였다.

(3) 이에 위 손ㅇㅇ과 김ㅇㅇ는 위 납세고지서 및 그 송달서용지를 지참하고 같은 날 14:00경 원고의 집인 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ아파트 ㅇ동 ㅇ호로 찾아가 수차례 초인종을 눌렀으나 아무런 인기척이 없고 집이 비어 있어 원고나 그 가족들을 만나기 위하여 같은 날 19:00경까지 집 밖에서 기다렸으나 끝내 그들을 만나지 못하게 되자 위 아파트의 문틈을 통하여 위 납세고지서를 원고의 집 안으로 투입한 후 철수하였는데 당시 원고를 만나지 못한 탓으로 위 송달서에 원고의 서명날인을 받지는 못하였다.

(4) 한편 위 손ㅇㅇ과 김ㅇㅇ의 방문시간 동안 원고는 직장인 ㅇㅇ종합병원에서 근무한데 이어 자신의 처인 소외 유ㅇㅇ를 위한 도서출판기념 모임에 참석차 출타중이었고, 위 유ㅇㅇ를 비롯한 원고의 가족들 또한 위 모임에 참석차 모두 출타중이었다.

(5) 이어 원고는 위 모임을 마치고 위 병원을 거쳐 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 소재 자신의 처가에 들러 그곳에서 다음날인 같은 해 6. 1. 아침까지 머무른 후 같은 날 오전에 귀가하였고, 위 유ㅇㅇ 등 원고의 가족들도 위 모임을 마치고 바로 위 목동 소재 집에 들러 그 곳에서 원고와 합류하여 함께 머무른 후 귀가하였다.

B. Provisions of relevant statutes

According to Articles 8, 10 (1), (3), and (6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, service of tax payment notices shall be made by delivery or mail, service of tax payment notices by public officials in charge shall be made by delivering it to the person who is obliged to receive the service, and when a tax payment notice is issued, the recipient shall sign and seal the service notice, but when the recipient refuses to do so, the recipient shall sign and affix his seal on the service slip.

In addition, according to Articles 8 and 12 (1) of the same Act, a tax payment notice shall take effect from the time when the person to receive the tax payment notice reaches the person to receive the tax payment notice, and according to Rule 1-3-12 of the basic law of the same Act, a notice of tax payment does not require the person to receive the tax payment, but means the time when the person to receive the document refuses to receive the document without any justifiable reason and is generally able to know the fact by social norms (e.g., when the mail is put in or when the document is received by his family, relatives or employees living together).

C. Determination

"In light of the above provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the delivery of a tax notice shall be deemed to have reached the provisions of Article 12 (1) of the same Act when the delivery of a tax notice is made in accordance with the method of delivery under Article 10 (3) and (6) of the same Act, and its validity shall be deemed to be recognized. (Therefore, the "month" does not require the person to receive the tax notice to directly attend the other party's management right, and it is generally accepted by social norms (e.g., when the tax notice is delivered by mail), and it shall be deemed that the delivery of a tax notice is effective when the person to receive the document refuses the delivery without any justifiable reason. In this case, the defendant, while being aware of the fact that the delivery of the notice of this case was made in accordance with Article 172 (2) and (6) of the same Act, the delivery of the notice of this case does not constitute an unlawful delivery of the notice of this case to the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant is not obliged to obtain any signature or seal from the plaintiff.

Even if the service method of the above tax notice is lawful, the service shall take effect on the date the plaintiff becomes aware of the existence of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu11535, Nov. 24, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 95Nu11535, Nov. 24, 1995, etc.). According to the above findings, the plaintiff becomes aware of the existence of the disposition of this case as soon as possible on June 1, 1994. Thus, the above tax notice shall take effect on the same day. The above tax notice shall take effect on May 31 of the same year, which is the expiration date of the exclusion period of the disposition of this case. However, it is apparent that the above disposition of this case was imposed on May 31 of the same year, which is the expiration date of the exclusion period of the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the disposition of this case shall be null and void because it

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.