Where the tax authority designates the representative director of the company as the secondary taxpayer and gives notice for payment, the case holding that the notice for payment is unlawful on the ground that the tax authority issued the notice for payment without attaching the notice for payment to the substitute recipient and without receiving the signature and seal of the recipient.

In light of the mandatory provisions of Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, when the tax authority intends to collect national taxes from the secondary taxpayer, it merely puts the official seal of the representative director of the Company A on the notice of payment, such as value-added tax, which the tax authority designated the representative director of the Company B as the secondary taxpayer and sent to Byung who was entrusted by the tax authority with the act of receiving the notice of payment, etc. from Eul, and the signature of the recipient and the personal seal of the recipient are not affixed. In addition, if there is no evidence to recognize that the tax authority served the notice of payment on Eul by the secondary taxpayer, it can not be said that the notice of payment on Eul was legitimate merely based on the fact that the tax authority sent the notice of payment to Byung to Byung.

Articles 8 and 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Collection of National Taxes

Dongyang Mutual Savings Bank

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu11294 delivered on January 24, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined, based on evidence, that the defendant designated the non-party Samsung Chemical Industries Co., Ltd. as the second taxpayer for the delinquent taxes such as value-added tax for the first period of 1984 and value-added tax for the first period of 1984 and the first period of 1st century as the representative director of the above company, and served the notice of payment on the above company by service by public notice for the reasons stated in its reasoning, and that the second period of 1982 corporate tax for the above company, the second period of 1982 corporate tax for the same business year, the defense tax for the same year, and the defense tax for the same year, were the second taxpayer and the above tax payment notice was delivered to the above company, and that the above notice of tax payment was lawful on the premise that the second taxpayer and the second taxpayer are the person liable for tax payment, and that the second taxpayer were the person liable for tax payment, and that the second taxpayer and the third taxpayer were the person liable for tax payment, and that each of the above notice of payment was lawful.

According to the provisions of Articles 8(1), 10(1), 10(3), and 10(6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, documents prescribed by tax-related Acts shall be served at the domicile, residence, place of business, or office of the holder of the title deed. Such documents shall be served by delivery or mail to the person to be served with the notice at the place where the notice is to be served, and when documents are delivered to the person to be served with the person to be served with the notice, the recipient shall sign and seal on the notice. However, even according to the document No. 3 of the judgment of the court below, the notice of payment of value-added tax, corporate tax, and income tax defense tax for the year 1982 as stated above shall be affixed with the seal of the representative director of the above company at the place where the notice was given, and the personal seal of the recipient is not affixed. Further, according to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, if the second taxpayer is to collect national taxes, etc. from the person liable for tax payment, the notice of payment shall be served with the notice and other details.

However, according to the evidence found by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the notice of payment of value-added tax and additional dues for the first period of the year of 1984 for the above company was delivered lawfully by service by public notice to the above company, and it is clear that the public sale price was distributed after the seizure of the real estate in this case owned by the above Yellow Man was made. Thus, the above seizure disposition and public sale disposition are legitimate. Thus, the above error by the court below is without any influence on the result of the judgment below that the distribution disposition in this case was legitimate.

Ultimately, the argument is either groundless or groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)