The case holding that the service of decision on the request for examination filed against apartment security guards is lawful on the ground that the right to receive registered mail, etc. is implicitly delegated to apartment security guards.

In the apartment of which the person liable to pay tax is residing, the mail is ordinarily put up in the above mail, but special mail, such as registered mail, is customarily contacted with the residents by the apartment security guards to the residents using the base phone, and if such contact is not made, the apartment security guards receive it and deliver it to the residents. If the residents of the above apartment do not raise any objection to the method of delivery, it is reasonable to view that the above apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registration mail, etc. to the security guards of the apartment, because it is reasonable to view that the above apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registration mail, etc. to the apartment security guards of the apartment, the above decision was legally notified to the taxpayer on November 12, 1991, which received the written decision on the above request for review. Thus, a request for trial filed on January 16, 1992 is unlawful with the limit of the period of time.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu13259 delivered on June 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 11, 1991, the plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on July 11, 1991, and the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the above objection, and the plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 19 of the same year. On November 12 of the same year, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service received the written decision by Nonparty 1, who is an apartment security guard residing in the plaintiff, and the plaintiff received the written decision by registered mail from the above non-party 1, and then the plaintiff was later delivered the above written decision by the above non-party 1, 60 days later to the National Tax Tribunal on January 16, 192. The court below determined that the above written decision was not received by the above non-party 1, which was legally delegated by the plaintiff to the plaintiff by the above non-party 1, but the special mail, such as the registered apartment mail, was administered to the above non-party 1, which was delivered to the plaintiff.

If the evidence presented by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, the above determination of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or erroneous interpretation of statutes, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)