Whether service of a notice is lawful and its prescription is completed

The notice on the disposition of this case is confirmed to have been sent to the plaintiff's domicile on the plaintiff's resident registration and the service is completed, and at the time the plaintiff's spouse was served with the written notice as a

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Guhap2636 Revocation, etc. of collection disposition, such as global income tax.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 18, 2019

on 05 October 09, 201

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s revocation or invalidity of each disposition (including additional tax) on global income tax of 2001 as of September 1, 2003, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2001, global income tax of 2003 as of July 1, 2004, and transfer income tax of 000 won for the year 2003 as of June 1, 2005.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff worked as the representative of the CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) from May 10, 1994 to December 22, 2003.

B. On September 1, 2003, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the global income tax for the year 2001 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a final tax return on global income tax by aggregating the earned income received from CCC and DD in 2001 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

C. On March 2, 2004, the director of the OCO confirmed that the CCC did not report corporate tax for the year 2003, and disposed of the same amount as the bonus to the Plaintiff, a representative, in calculating the tax base amount according to the estimation decision in 2003, when making the estimation decision on corporate tax for the year 2003.

On July 1, 2004, the defendant notified the head of the OO head of the tax office of taxation data related to the disposition of the above disposition of the income, and decided and notified the plaintiff 00 won of global income tax (including additional tax) for the plaintiff 2003 (hereinafter "the second disposition of this case").

D. On June 9, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred 'OO' to the Plaintiff and did not report the transfer income tax. On June 1, 2005, the Defendant decided and notified 000 won of the transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff in 2003 following the transfer of the above commercial building (hereinafter referred to as "third disposition of this case", and "each disposition of this case" was referred to as "each disposition of this case").

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed an objection X. X., but was ordered to dismiss X. X. on 2017, and filed an appeal on X. X. on 2017, but received a decision of dismissal P.P. on 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 13, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case in this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner or void as a matter of course on the following grounds.

1) The Plaintiff was under detention from 200X. XX to 200 XX. XX., the Plaintiff was unable to receive a tax payment notice on each of the instant dispositions. The Plaintiff’s wife FF was residing in 'OO-dong 623-25, and 'OO-dong 623-25, and 303' from October 6, 201 to November 30, 201, and 'OOO-dong 33-2, and 303' are merely formal move-in reports. Thus, the delivery of a tax payment notice to the above address is unlawful.

2) The secondary tax liability is established on the premise that the primary tax liability is established. The CCC, the main taxpayer, did not pay any tax at present, and the Plaintiff is not an oligopolistic shareholder of the CCC, and thus, the first and second dispositions of this case based on such premise are unlawful.

3) A collection right based on each of the dispositions of this case occurred in 2001 or in 2003, and the extinctive prescription of five years at present has expired.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument of the Plaintiff

A) In a case where the service of a tax notice violates the Framework Act on National Taxes and thus is unlawful, the service of a tax notice does not take effect and the subsequent taxation disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995). In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds why the administrative disposition is null and void. Meanwhile, in the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) there are no special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act (Service on Detained Persons, etc.) or the provisions concerning the service of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the service of a tax notice to a person detained in a detention house, etc. is made to the address, residence, or office under Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and if the person fails to serve at that place, the notice may be served on his/her employee, employee, or person living together (see, etc.).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff was unable to receive the tax payment notice of each of the dispositions of this case. Rather, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is highly likely that the tax payment notice of this case under each of the dispositions of this case was properly served on the Plaintiff by means of delivery under Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

① Although the preservation period for each of the dispositions of this case remains, according to the inquiry about the details of the decision on collection of each of the dispositions of this case confirmed by computer, each of the dispositions of this case was printed out on each of the dispositions of this case, and then each of the dispositions of this case was served on 'OOOOO-gu OO-type OO, 303'.

② At the time of the notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case, the Plaintiff’s domicile was the same as the address for which the notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case was served. Although the Plaintiff was confined to an O prison from 200 X. XX. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x., the time of the delivery of the notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case, the Plaintiff’s domicile was also the same as the address of the person detained in

③ At the time of the delivery of each of the dispositions in this case, the Plaintiff’s wife FF’s domicile was also the same as the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the entries in the evidence Nos. 15 through 18 alone are insufficient to recognize that FF actually resided in the Plaintiff’s domicile, unlike the Plaintiff’s resident registration. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s wife FF would have been able to receive the tax payment notice of each of the dispositions in this case as a cohabitant at the Plaintiff’s domicile.

2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

The first and second dispositions of this case are all related to global income tax that the plaintiff is liable to pay, and since the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the second tax due to CCC's default, the first and second dispositions are not complementary to the plaintiff. Thus, the first plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

3) Judgment on the third assertion by the Plaintiff

Each disposition of this case is not a disposition to collect the national tax, but a disposition to impose national tax. Article 26 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when the period of national tax is terminated without any assessment within the period during which national tax can be imposed as a cause extinguishing a tax obligation (Article 26 subparagraph 2), when the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax is completed (Article 3). Since the exclusion period of the right to impose the national tax under the substantive law when the tax liability is established and the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax under the procedural law when the right to collect the national tax becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9431, Mar. 29, 2002), even if the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax has expired, it does not constitute an unlawful disposition to impose national tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each disposition of this case is unlawful

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.