Service by public notice and delivery procedure shall be valid.

The plaintiff's assertion that there is a serious and apparent defect that the taxpayer is liable to pay capital gains tax is without merit, and the procedural requirements such as service by public notice are all satisfied, it is difficult to evaluate that the main contents of the tax notice are omitted, and the service of the global income tax notice is valid.

Article 11 (Service by Public Notice)

2014Guhap61194. Invalidity confirmation, etc. of a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax

AA

The Director of the Z Tax Office

April 3, 2015

April 17, 2015

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax in attached Form 1 and the compilation of attached Form 2 around the world;

The imposition of income tax is confirmed to be null and void, and the transfer income tax listed in attached Form 1 is preliminaryly confirmed.

The imposition disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Imposition of capital gains tax and service by publication;

1) On January 21, 2011, a transfer of shares was completed on the ground of transfer in the name of Nonparty CCC (hereinafter “instant shares transfer”) on January 21, 201 with respect to the OO shares registered as the Plaintiff’s ownership in the register of shareholders of BB bank (hereinafter “B bank”).

2) On November 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) considered the Plaintiff’s existing acquisition value as OO, transfer value as OO, and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of transfer income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “disposition of imposition of transfer income tax”); (c) considered the Plaintiff’s existing acquisition value as OO and the transfer value as OO.

3) After that, on December 17, 2012, the defendant stated "transfer income tax" in the tax item column, "OO members" in the tax item column, "AAA" in the name column, "*******************************," respectively, in the name column of the documents, the above documents were sent by December 25, 2012, but the payment deadline was changed by January 14, 2013 and the above documents (hereinafter referred to as "public notice of this case") were sent by means of public notice on the Z tax bulletin board (hereinafter referred to as "public notice of this case").

(b) Imposition and delivery of global income tax;

1) On March 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received interest income equivalent to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW O0 from BB bank during the global income tax period in 2009; and (b) deemed that the Plaintiff corrected and notified the global income tax amount of KRW O0 for the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter “assessment disposition of global income tax”).

2) On April 1, 2013, the Z tax base income tax and the ZE EE drafted a receipt of the tax payment notice of the global income tax (hereinafter “the receipt of this case”).

3) The receipt of this case is written in the name column of the holder of the title deed as "AAA", the address or place of business of the holder of the title deed, and the place of delivery column as "OOO-dong OO apartment OO-dong OO apartment OO-dong OO-dong O-dong O-dong OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 'the apartment of this case'. The signature and seal column of the recipient appears to be "DD (A-car)" as "the delivery of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "delivery of this case").

(c) Procedures of the previous trial;

On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the imposition of capital gains tax and global income tax and filed an objection against the Defendant. However, on January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff received a decision of rejection on the ground that the appeal period has expired, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 27, 2014, which was within 90 days from the date of service of the written decision, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the disposition of capital gains tax on March 27, 2014. However, the Plaintiff received a decision of rejection on the same ground on May 29, 2014 and filed the instant lawsuit on June 23, 2014

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 13, 16, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The following important and clear defects are found in the imposition of capital gains tax and the imposition of global income tax.

(1) Imposition of capital gains tax

A) The instant shares were acquired by FF, which operated BB bank with the Plaintiff’s husband, by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and the said disposition was not owned by the Plaintiff, and thus constitutes a taxation disposition against a person who is not a taxpayer.

B) The instant service by public notice is null and void because it does not meet the requirements prescribed by relevant laws.

(2) Disposition imposing global income tax

A) Since the Plaintiff did not have received interest income during the taxable period in 2009, there is no ground for disposition.

B) It is difficult to view that the employment relationship with the Plaintiff at the time of the delivery of the instant case was already terminated, and that the said service was made in the instant apartment, which is the place where the service was to be served. Therefore, the validity of the above service cannot be recognized.

(b) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant defense that the main claim part of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it was filed after the filing period of the lawsuit. However, in a lawsuit seeking nullification of an administrative disposition, the limitation of the filing period is not applied (see, e.g., Articles 20 and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995; 2005Du15625, Mar. 10, 2006). The above defense is without merit.

D. Determination on the claim to nullify the imposition of capital gains tax

(1) Whether the taxpayer is erroneous or not

In light of the foregoing, in a case where objective circumstances exist to mislead the person to be subject to taxation as to any legal relation or factual relations that are not subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation, the factual basis should be accurately examined. As such, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed apparent even if it is so serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that any unlawful taxation that misleads the person to be subject to taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du932, Jun. 28, 2013; 2014Du4795, Sept. 4, 2014).

As seen earlier, at the time of the transfer of the instant shares, the said shares were registered as owned by the Plaintiff in the register of shareholders of the BB bank at the time of the transfer of the shares. As such, as FF owned the said shares by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, whether the said income actually belonged to the FF can be determined only after an accurate investigation into the factual relationship. Thus, even if the said capital gains actually belonged to the FF, the defect that misleads the subject of the imposition of capital gains tax may not be deemed to constitute a defect that may be attributable to the invalidation of the disposition.

In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the capital gains from the transfer of shares were to belong to the title truster upon the transfer of shares to a third party, in general, if the transfer of shares belongs to the title truster, the person liable to pay the relevant capital gains tax under the substance over form principle under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6387, Oct. 10, 197). However, the fact that the ownership of the income is merely nominal and there is a person who asserts that there is another person who actually obtains such income, has the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984; 2012Du1468, Nov. 15, 2012; 2012Du1468, etc.). The above capital gains from the transfer of shares belongs to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff asserts that it was attributable to the nominal F.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there is a serious and clear defect that misleads the taxpayer in the disposition of the transfer income tax of this case is without merit.

(2) Whether the instant service by public notice is valid

(A) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) A taxation disposition for which a tax payment notice has not been served lawfully on the other party is invalid due to any defect in the requirements for the validity of the taxation disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu332, May 9, 1984; 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995); the burden of proving whether service by public notice by public notice by public notice is legitimate is, in principle, imposed on the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu4134, Oct. 14, 1994; 96Nu3562, Jun. 28, 1996).

(2) Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides three cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) where the service of documents under tax laws, such as a tax payment notice, is difficult to be made by means of service by public notice (Article 1); (2) where the address or place of business is located abroad; (3) where the person under Article 10(4) is unable to serve documents; and (4) where the documents are delivered by registered mail but the recipient is absent; and (4) where the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 11(1)3 of the Act) is deemed difficult to serve documents within the payment period due to the absence of the recipient’s request for the delivery of documents twice or more by public notice (Article 20(14).18).2);

4) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the instant case’s statements, the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment on June 1, 199 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 18, 199; (b) the Plaintiff resided with FF at the place following the moving-in report; (c) the Defendant sent the notice of pre-announcement of taxation on the said transfer income tax to the Plaintiff on two occasions on June 28, 2012 and July 24, 2012, but returned all of the notice of pre-announcement of taxation on the said transfer income tax to the Plaintiff on the same apartment, and served the notice of pre-announcement of taxation on August 24, 2012 on August 24, 2012; and (c) the Defendant again sent the said notice of taxation on the said apartment to the Plaintiff on three occasions as indicated below, but all this registered apartment was closed, but the Defendant still confirmed the fact that the instant apartment was returned to the Plaintiff’s domicile as the Plaintiff’s resident registration.

5) As can be seen, the Defendant sent a tax notice three times by registered mail to the Plaintiff’s domicile entered in the Plaintiff’s resident registration card, but returned the Plaintiff’s absence, and the Defendant’s notice of taxation sent by mail to the said address was returned for the same reason. The Plaintiff’s argument that “In the process of the instant pleading, the Plaintiff left the instant apartment on May 7, 2012, and was detained in BB bank situation, and continued to reside in his relative house, and the said apartment was living in his relative house for a long time.” (the Defendant’s written brief Nos. 9 and 3 pages of the written complaint as of August 14, 2014), it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff interfered with the Defendant’s exercise of the right to impose taxes by leaving the existing place where the said tax notice was delivered for a long time, and the final date of the tax payment notice was at the time of December 15, 2012, and it is difficult to serve the tax payment notice within the due date for payment.

Therefore, the service by public notice of this case satisfies all the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Article 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Evidence No. 17) and the defendant's internal computerized data (Evidence No. 12) include "the reason for failure to serve by public notice" as "the reason for failure to serve by public notice". However, in light of the above fact that the reasons for failure to serve by public notice and the aforementioned computerized data are described as "the reason for failure to serve by public notice" as the reasons for failure to serve by public notice at least three times as the recipient is confirmed as being absent and it is difficult to serve by public notice within the due date, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant served by public notice pursuant to Article 1

(B) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Method of attack and defense

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's evidence related to the service by public notice of this case (Evidence No. 10 to 13, 17) is submitted and that it should be dismissed because it is an attack and defense method.

Therefore, according to the supporting documents submitted by the Defendant, the Z tax authorities are acknowledged to have moved from Cheongdam building located in the Seoul OOdong 52 to 425 on June 23, 2014, which was around the filing date of the instant lawsuit. Since the Defendant appears to have spent more time than ordinary cases in finding relevant documents according to the relocation of the above office building, it is difficult to conclude that the delay in submitting evidence by the Defendant is due to the intention or gross negligence to the extent that each of the above documentary evidence should be dismissed. In addition, since the court did not dismiss the methods of attack and defense in the form of a party’s decision and completed the examination of evidence on the method of attack and defense, it is difficult to conclude that the conclusion of the lawsuit is not likely to be delayed, and under such circumstances, it is impossible to render a judgment dismissing the party’s means of attack and defense on the grounds of such judgment at each stage of pleading, including the aforementioned new evidence examination at each stage of pleading 205Nu509, April 28, 2003.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) The duty of good manager and the violation of Article 17(1) and (5) of the Regulations on the Management of Collection of National Taxes

Then, the plaintiff asserts that the service of this case was made without due care of a good manager since the defendant attempted to make a local trip to the apartment of this case and did not inquire into the actual domicile of the plaintiff, and that the service of this case was made without due care of a good manager, and that the service of this case is null and void because it violated Article 17 (1) and (5) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Collection, which requires the delivery by local trip

The interpretation that the tax authority should have visited the place to be served prior to the execution of service by public notice according to the impossibility of service by public notice is inconsistent with the system that independently lists the reasons for service by public notice under subparagraph 1 of Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the reasons for service by public notice under subparagraph 2, and the reasons for the impossibility of service by public notice under subparagraph 2.

In addition, the tax authority is obligated to detect the address or place of business of the person to be served with due care when serving by public notice pursuant to Article 11(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (where the address or place of business is unclear), but it is difficult to deem that the tax authority has a duty to detect the address or place of business even when serving by public notice pursuant to Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (where the person to be served with the document is not at the place of service), such as serving by public notice in this case (the plaintiff is invoked Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu17575, Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu1756, Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu7146, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu429, while the reason for serving by public notice in Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes was introduced at the time when the Framework Act on National Taxes was amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 196; each of the above Supreme Court decisions is not a dispute over the validity of service by public notice).

In addition, the regulation on the collection of national taxes is merely an instruction and it is a violation of it, and the taxation disposition does not necessarily become null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on different premise is without merit.

3) Violation of Article 21(3) of the Regulations on the Collection of National Taxes

Furthermore, Article 21(3) of the Regulations on the Collection of National Taxes permits the method of service by public notice via the national tax information and communications network, the method of posting a notice on the bulletin board of tax offices and other appropriate places, and the method of posting a notice on the Official Gazette or daily newspapers, and the method of public notice using the national tax information and communications network should be carried out together with other method of service by public notice. Since the Defendant used only the method of public notice via the national tax and communications network, it asserts that the service by

The latter part of Article 11(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes also provides the same contents as Article 21(3) of the Regulations on the Management of National Taxes. Thus, if the defendant conducts the service by publication only through the national tax information and communications network, it becomes a matter of violation of the law, not a matter of violation of the Regulations on the Management of National Taxes. However, according to the evidence Nos. 6 and No. 17, according to each of the evidence Nos. 17, it can be acknowledged that the defendant posted the notice in this case on the Zzine bulletin bulletin on December 17, 2012. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant merely conducted the service by publication using the national tax information and communications network is without merit

(iv)the use of directives forms;

Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's preparation of the written public notice of this case by using the Directive form violates the upper law.

The above argument is deemed to include both the purport that the Defendant’s use of the directives form itself is in violation of the superior laws and subordinate statutes and the purport that Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is not stated in the written public notice of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s use of directives form constitutes a violation of superior

First of all, we examine whether the defendant's use of the Directive itself violates the superior laws and regulations.

Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if a person who is obliged to receive documents falls under any of the following subparagraphs, documents shall be deemed to have been served under Article 8 14 days after the date the main contents of the documents are announced publicly." In addition, Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "public notice under Article 11(1) of the Act shall be made in attached Form 5, and the form thereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") shall be as shown in attached Form 5. On the other hand, Article 21(3) of the Regulations on the Management of National Taxes, which is the instructions of the National Tax Service, provides that "Service by public notice shall be made in the bulletin board of the Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu) having jurisdiction over the place of service by public notice (attached Form 8) or in other appropriate places, or in the Official Gazette or daily newspapers, which is not the form of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Tax if many service providers are in service by public notice."

In this case, as seen earlier, the Defendant used an official announcement form, not the Enforcement Rule, at the time of the preparation of the written notice. However, Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes only provides that “the main content of the documents shall be publicly announced regarding the method of service by public notice,” but did not delegate the matters concerning the method of specific public notice under subordinate statutes. As such, Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes merely provides the method of specific administrative actions without delegation of statutes, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant method of service by public notice violates the Act solely on the ground that the Defendant did not use the form of the Enforcement Rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

Next, we examine whether the notice of this case contains any omission in the main contents of the tax payment notice of capital gains tax.

According to the above facts, the notice of this case contains items of taxation, amount of tax, taxpayer's name and resident registration number, and the changed payment deadline: Provided, That Article 9 (1) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11605, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) does not state the year to which, among the items prescribed as the items to be stated in the notice of tax notice, the year to which, the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the place of payment are included, and the main contents of the document in the remarks column of the Enforcement Rule shall be stated.

① Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes relaxs the scope of the documents to be publicly announced in service by public notice, rather than the entire content of the documents. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that, in the case of service by public notice, it is appropriate to deem that the relevant service provider’s confirmation of the content of the public notice, and that it is sufficient to state the content of the documents to the extent that the public notice office may request perusal and delivery by specifying the documents publicly announced. However, given that the notice of this case contains the most essential tax items and tax amount as well as the due date for payment ( January 14, 2013) and the name of the documents to be served (tax notice) as well as the tax amount to be served, the Plaintiff’s confirmation of the said public notice is an OO, and the Defendant’s tax amount is an OO, and the due date for payment was

② In addition, the fundamental purpose of entering the details, etc. of the disposition in a tax notice is to determine whether a taxpayer is dissatisfied with the disposition and to provide convenience in filing an objection. The Defendant’s prior to serving a tax notice of capital gains tax on August 6, 2012, served a notice of pre-announcement on the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012. According to the above facts, service by public notice also satisfies the requirements for serving by public notice as prescribed in Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. According to the evidence evidence No. 3, the notice of pre-announcement of taxation was prepared using the Enforcement Rule, which is not an instruction form, and the main content of the document was written on January 21, 2011 (BB bank) and thus did not report capital gains tax to the Plaintiff on January 21, 201, and thus, it appears that the above notice of pre-announcement of taxation was not included in the item and tax amount of capital gains tax (B) as well as well as the Plaintiff’s notice.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(C) Sub-decisions

The plaintiff's assertion that the service by public notice of this case is invalid is without merit.

E. Determination on the claim to invalidate the imposition of global income tax

(1) Whether there exist grounds for disposition

In light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 6 and 9, the plaintiff can sufficiently recognize the fact that the plaintiff obtained interest income equivalent to the total OO won during the taxable period of 2009. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for the disposition of global income tax imposition does not exist.

(2) Whether the delivery of this case is valid

A) In cases where a person to receive documents, such as a person liable for duty payment, etc., who is the other party to a taxation, has expressly or explicitly delegated the right to receive postal items and other documents to a third party, such delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully delivered the relevant documents to the person to receive the documents upon receipt of the pertinent documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1161, Apr. 10, 1998; 2004Du3717, Jul. 9, 2004). Moreover, the delegated person to receive the tax payment notice does not necessarily need to be an employee or a person living together with the delegating person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du17074, Mar. 10, 200; 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 2000).

B) In light of the facts and circumstances described in the evidence Nos. 8, 9, 5, 14, and 15 as to the instant case, the Plaintiff ordered Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

① From May 201, Nonparty DD served as the Plaintiff’s household government in the instant apartment from May 201.

② On March 15, 2013, the Defendant sent a tax payment notice of global income tax to the instant apartment, but was returned on March 29, 2013.

③ On April 1, 2013, the Defendant issued an on-site verification certificate (hereinafter “the business trip certificate of this case”) to public officials EE and one other than EE in the Z tax secretary, immediately after the said return, on April 1, 2013.

④ The receipt of the instant case written by the EE on April 1, 2013 stated that DD received a global income tax payment notice against the Plaintiff in the instant apartment.

⑤ An official document may not be rejected unless there are special circumstances such as presumption of its authenticity and the probative value of its contents also go against the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da14652, Nov. 28, 2003; 2001Da78768, Feb. 22, 2002). The receipt of this case constitutes an official document on the part of a public official, and the delivery place falls under the part of the official document, and the delivery place falls under the part of the official document. As seen earlier, the receipt of this case includes the apartment of this case as the delivery place, and there is no special circumstance to reject the probative value of its contents.

⑤ The receipt date of the instant case and the business trip date of the instant case correspond to April 1, 2013, and the Defendant designated the instant apartment from the business trip date as the business trip place.

7) On September 24, 2012, the process of voluntary auction was initiated on the instant apartment and sold on May 2, 2013. At the time the receipt of the instant apartment was prepared, the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant apartment.

8) It is difficult to understand that the Defendant, in this case, did not appear that the Defendant was aware of the place of residence, place of work, and contact information of DD, which is not the person liable for duty payment, and that DD was immediately discharged from any place other than the apartment of this case in light of the empirical rule.

9) In the course of the instant pleading, the Plaintiff was also a person who instructed DDR to receive postal items on the instant apartment on April 1, 2013.

C) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the delivery of this case is null and void.

F. Sub-committee

The plaintiff's primary claim seeking confirmation of the imposition of capital gains tax and the imposition of global income tax is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

With respect to the preliminary claim seeking revocation in the sense of seeking nullification of the disposition imposing capital gains tax by asserting that there are defects such as the above 2. A. (1), the defendant asserts that this part of the lawsuit is unlawful because it is against the objection period.

B. Determination

In a case where an administrative litigation seeking revocation is filed within the meaning of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition, it shall meet the requirements for filing a suit, such as compliance with the period for filing a suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu1039, Mar. 12, 1993; 2000Du6299, Feb. 26, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiff seeks revocation in the sense of declaring the invalidity of a disposition imposing capital gains tax as a matter of course, the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall be observed.

Therefore, the main text of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "an action for cancellation may be brought even without going through an administrative appeal against the disposition." The proviso provides that "an action for cancellation shall not be filed without going through an administrative appeal against the disposition." Meanwhile, Article 56(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax laws shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon is notified" and Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the same Act provide that "an action for cancellation shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes is informed of the disposition (the date on which a notice of disposition is received)". Therefore, an appeal for cancellation of a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts shall be filed after going through an administrative appeal for cancellation of the disposition, and where a request for examination or adjudgment has been filed after an adjudication.

In addition, according to Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for evaluation and a request for adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is known (the date on which a notice of disposition is received), and “the date on which the relevant disposition is known” refers to the date on which a person, other than the other party to the disposition or a person who is provided for in the statutes, makes a request for objection or a request for review, which means the period, and if a person is the other party to the disposition, the date on which the notice of disposition is given, shall be deemed the first day of the request for review (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu7, Jul. 21, 1987; 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 200; 2004Du3717, etc.). In determining the date of service by service by public notice, even if service by public notice becomes effective, the period of request by publication shall be counted from the date of service by publication (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du.

Furthermore, when the method of filing a revocation lawsuit immediately becomes aware of an administrative disposition, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the relevant disposition is known, and when the method of filing an administrative appeal is selected, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the relevant disposition is known and a written adjudication on administrative appeal is served within 90 days from the date when the relevant disposition is served. Therefore, where a revocation lawsuit is not filed without filing an administrative appeal within 90 days from the date when the relevant disposition is known, a revocation lawsuit instituted thereafter shall be deemed unlawful since the period of filing the lawsuit has expired, and it shall not be deemed that a revocation lawsuit again complies with the period of filing a revocation lawsuit on the original disposition within 90 days from the date when the written adjudication is served (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18786, Nov. 24, 2011).

As seen earlier, the instant notice of transfer income tax is valid upon meeting the requirements stipulated by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. As such, the instant notice of transfer income tax shall be deemed to have been served on the Plaintiff on December 31, 2012 after the lapse of 14 days from the date of the said public notice pursuant to Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. Since the Plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition imposing transfer income tax on January 10, 2014, which is apparent from the 90th day from the date of the said public notice, the said objection is deemed to have been filed in excess of the period of application, and thus, the foregoing objection is inappropriate, and as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff actually becomes aware of the disposition imposing transfer income tax on the date of the said public notice, as long as the objection is unlawful, the conjunctive part of the instant lawsuit seeking cancellation of the said disposition did not go through the pre-trial procedure, and it does not change even if the instant lawsuit was filed within 90 days from the date of the notice of

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is reasonable, and the part of the conjunctive claim in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

Sector is illegal and thus dismissed.