Document Delivery Book

Even if a minor who is 15 years of age is appointed and his/her guardian is appointed, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that he/she has an intelligence to change interest, so the delivery of a notice for tax payment of inheritance tax to him/her is lawful.

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

(a) Whether service is made by a minor who is 15 years of age and who is appointed by a guardian;

(b) The case holding that an address or a business office which is the cause of service by publication under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is located overseas and it is difficult to serve it;

A. Even if a minor is appointed as a guardian as a minor at the age of 15, barring special circumstances, the service of a notice for tax payment of inheritance tax is lawful.

B. In the event that the domicile of the person on whom a notice of inheritance tax payment was served is the United States, and the above notice of tax payment was not served on his domicile by means of registered mail was returned on the ground that it was not served on his domicile, it shall be reasonable to deem that the address or the place of business, which is the reason for service by public notice, is overseas and the service is difficult.

Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

"1. 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제1호증의 1(상속세과세가액결의서),2(재산평가조서), 을 제2호증(상속세과세가액 오류결정결의서), 을 제3호증의 1(상속세과세가액오류결정결의서),2(재산평가조서), 을 제4호증의 2(상속재산내역평가), 을 제8호증의 1(기안문서),2(협조전),3(송달불능사유서),4(반송봉투),5(납세고지서),6(공고문),8(세액결정통지서),9(공시송달)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 소외 망 양○○의 외아들로서 1985.6.29. 그의 부인 위 양○○이 사망함에 따라 위 소외 망인의 소유명의로 있던 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 ○○번지 대 264평방미터 및 그 지상 건물 2동 합계 163.57평방미터, ○○ ○○구 ○○동 ○○가 ○○번지 대 3,234.6평방미터, 같은 동 ○○번지 대 898.2평방미터, 같은 동 ○○번지 대 717평방미터(이하 이사건 상속부동산이라 한다)를 단독으로 상속하였는데 19875.12.경 피고에게 이 사건 상속부동산 중 위 ○○동 ○○가 ○○번지 대 898.3평방미터를 제외한 나머지 부동산의 가액을 지방세법상의 과세시가표준액에 의한 합계금 272,825,450원으로 하여 상속세신고를 원고 명의로 한 사실, 그런데 피고는 1987.3.5. 이 사건 상속부동산 전부에 관하여 그 가액을 지방세법상의 과세시가표준액에 의하여 평가하여 그에 관한 상속세를 금 153,412,761원으로, 방위세를 금 30,234,667원으로 결정하여 그 고지서를 원고의 주소지인미합중국 ○○주 28144솔즈베리피칸레인 127루트5(Rt 5, 127 Pecan Lane Salisbury N.C. 28144, U.S.A.)'로 송달하였으나 그우편물이Unclaimed'(우편물을 찾아가지 아니함)라는 사유로 반송되어 오자 이를 수취인불명으로 인한 송달불능으로 보고 같은 해 4.9. 국세기본법 제11조 제1항 제2호에 의하여 위 납세고지서, 상속세액결정통지서 등을 공시송달의 방법으로 원고에게 송달한 사실, 그리고 피고는 같은 해 4.30. 앞서의 상속세의 세액결정에 있어서 상속재산가액에서 공제되지 아니한 장례비용을 공제하고, 세율을 55퍼센트로 정정 등을 하여 상속세를 금 129,435,213원으로, 방위세를 금 25,438,081원으로 감액결정하였다가 같은 해 6.27. 상속재산가액이 과대계상되었다고 하여 지방세법상의 과세시가표준액에 의하여 다시 평가한 금액인 별지 제1상속재산가액표기재의 금 302,592,510원을 상속재산가액으로 하여 원고에 대하여 별지 제2세액산출표기재와 같이 산출하여 상속세를 금 121,326,109원으로, 방위세를 금 23,781,874원으로 감액결정한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.",2. 피고는 이 사건 과세처분이 적법하다고 주장하고 이에 대하여 원고는 첫째, 피고가 1987.3.경 원고에 대한 납세고지서를 직접 원고 본인 앞으로 등기우편송달을 하였으나 그 당시 원고 15세의 미성년자로서 미합중국 ○○주의 법률에 의거하여 ○○ 군법원으로부터 소외 ○○이 원고의 후견인으로 선임되어 있었으므로 미성년자인 원고가 직접 납세고지서의 송달을 수령할 능력이 없고, 또한 피고가 1987.3.5. 원고에게 송달한 납세고지서가 반송되어 온 사유는 수취인불명이 아니라 우편물을 찾아가지 아니하였다(Unclaimed)는 것으로서 이는 국세기본법 제11조 제1항 제2호의 경우에 해당하지 아니한다고 할 것이므로 원고에 대한 위 납세고지서 등의 공시송달은 국세기본법이 규정하는 공시송달의 요건을 흠결한 것이니 송달의 효력이 없어 결국 이 사건 과세처분은 위법하고 둘째, 이사건 상속부동산 중 위 ○○동 ○○번지 대지 및 그 지상건무에 관하여는 소외 이○○가 1986.4.경 원고를 상대로 위 대지 및 그 지상건물을 위 망 양○○로부터 매수하였음을 원인으로 하여 소유권이전등기청구소송을 제기하여 그 사건의 항소심에서 1987.6.22. 원고가 위 이○○로부터 금 10,000,000원을 지급받음과 동시에 위 부동산에 대한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하기로 하는 재판상화해를 하였으므로 원고가 수령할 금 10,000,000원이 상속재산이 되고 위 ○○동 ○○번지 대지 및 그 지상건물은 상속재산에서 제외하여 상속세를 산정하여야 하는데 위 부동산을 상속재산의 범위에 포함시켜 상속세를 부과한 이 사건 과세처분은 위법하다는 취지의 주장을 한다.

Therefore, in full view of the purport of oral argument as to the plaintiff's first argument, Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Disposition of Loss of Nationality) and No. 5 (Order) without dispute about the establishment, the plaintiff is a minor who was born on July 2, 197, and the defendant was appointed from the ○○ Military Court of the United States of America on July 10, 1985 to the non-party ○ as the plaintiff's guardian, and there is no other counter-proof, but even if the plaintiff was a minor, his service cannot be deemed unlawful, so long as the defendant had intelligence sufficient to change the nature of receiving the service, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the defendant received the service of the above inheritance tax, and thus, it shall be deemed that the service of the plaintiff would change the age of the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

In addition, Article 11(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when a person to be served with documents (the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts) has an address or place of business overseas and it is difficult to serve documents, service by public notice shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes after the lapse of 10 days from the date of public notice of the summary of the documents. As seen above, the plaintiff's domicile was the United States at the time of service of the inheritance tax of this case to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was sent by registered mail to the plaintiff's domicile, but it was impossible to serve documents because the plaintiff was not found. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the address or place of business of the person to be served with the documents stipulated in Article 11(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is overseas and it is difficult to serve documents. Accordingly, the defendant's service by public notice of the inheritance tax of this case to the plaintiff is lawful.

Next, in full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement No. 3 (Settlement Protocol) without dispute as to the plaintiff's second argument, since the non-party ○○○○, among the inherited real property of this case, purchased ○○○○○-dong site and buildings on its ground from the above ○○○○○-dong site from the above ○○○-dong site around April 1986, 1986, the cause of the claim against the plaintiff on December 3, 197, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer transfer registration against the plaintiff on June 22, 1987, and the lawsuit is pending on June 22, 1987, the appellate court of this case received 10,000,000 won from the above ○○○-si, and it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff reached a judicial compromise with the above ○○○-dong site, but Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax Act still provides that the above real estate shall be subject to taxation of the inheritance tax and the above real estate before the inheritance was held in Korea.

Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition, such as the inheritance tax of this case, is legitimate in light of each evidence admitted by the party members, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's burden.