Whether the service of a notice is lawful or not.

Since it is confirmed that the plaintiff's wife received a written notice at the plaintiff's domicile on January 11, 2006, the argument that the plaintiff's wife is automatically null and void is without merit.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 49,664,70 (the KRW 52,987,230 stated in the purport of the claim and the application for change of cause as of September 12, 2007) to the Plaintiff on December 4, 2005 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transfer act”) 204.16 square meters in ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong dong 204, 97.42 square meters in the same ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○, and 96.4 square meters in its ground

B. As the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return on the difference in the transfer of assets following the transfer of each real estate of this case, the Defendant ex officio imposed and notified capital gains tax of KRW 3,322,522, and imposed and notified additional capital gains tax of KRW 49,664,70 as of December 4, 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition as of December 4, 2005”).

C. On April 13, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on the ground that the acquisition value of the instant disposition was under-calculated, and that the necessary expenses, such as the land excess profit tax, were omitted, but the Plaintiff received a decision of dismissal from the Director of the Regional Tax Office on June 26, 2006 on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an objection after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of the disposition.

D. On September 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on September 22, 2006, but it was also dismissed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 22, 2007 on the ground that the appeal period has expired.

In addition to the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course by asserting the following grounds:

① The calculation basis of capital gains tax was omitted in the notice of taxation notice sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff failed to receive the notice of tax payment indicating the taxable year, tax item, amount of tax, payment deadline, and place of payment.

② In calculating the transfer tax amount of the instant case, the Defendant significantly calculated the acquisition value and erred by not properly including necessary expenses recognized by the Act.

B. Determination

(1) As to the assertion on invalidation due to procedural defects

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the defendant determined and notified the transfer income tax amount on the basis of the acquisition value calculated by applying the standard market price to the previous land area before replotting, but notified the plaintiff that he would impose and notify transfer income tax by re-calculated the acquisition value based on the reserved land area on the ground that the previous land area before November 30, 2005 was the land designated as reserved land for replotting before December 31, 2004. The defendant sent a tax notice stating the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, payment deadline and place of payment to the plaintiff's domicile on December 4, 2005, and the former ○○○, the plaintiff's wife, as the plaintiff's address, received it at the plaintiff's domicile on January 11, 2006. Therefore, all of the arguments that the disposition of this case is void due to procedural defects are without merit.

② As to the assertion of invalidation due to substantive defects

Generally, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any factual relation such as the legal relation or income or act, which is subject to taxation, is significant and apparent, but in case where there are objective circumstances to mislead him as to any legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed as apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the defect is apparent that it constitutes a situation that can be clarified by accurately investigating the factual relation, which is the premise for calculating transfer income tax, and thus, it is not clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

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