The case holding that it cannot be readily concluded that a person subject to service has reached the person subject to service solely on the ground that he/she provided a tax notice to the children of the title holder who had resided in a separate domicile after marriage;

The case holding that it cannot be readily concluded that a person subject to service has reached the person subject to service solely on the ground that he/she provided a tax notice to the children of the title holder who visited the domicile of the title holder of temporary service while living in a separate domicile after marriage.

Articles 8, 10, and 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

【Court of Second Instance】

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6707 delivered on November 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the notice of tax disposition of this case against the plaintiff was sent by registered mail and received by the non-party 1 at the plaintiff's domicile on September 19, 1989, and that the non-party 1 married with the plaintiff non-party 2 on April 19 of the same year and resided in the plaintiff's domicile, other than the plaintiff's domicile (resident 1 omitted), but the plaintiff's house, his father, was left Korea from the United States, and entered the plaintiff's home, who was the plaintiff's father, and did not deliver the above tax notice to the plaintiff on September 21 of the same year without any consideration, and delivered it to the plaintiff on September 23 of the same year, and rejected the above tax disposition of this case on September 22 of the same year since it was difficult to view that the above non-party 1 received the above tax disposition of this case from the plaintiff's family or relative living with the plaintiff, and it was legitimate within 16th of the above tax notice of this case.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified. Further, Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any document prescribed by this Act or any other tax-related Act shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the person in whose name the document is to be served pursuant to Article 8," and Article 12 (1) of the same Act provides that "any document served pursuant to Article 8 shall take effect upon the person in whose name the document is to be served." Thus, it shall not be deemed that the document sent a tax notice to the child of the person in whose name the document was served while living in a separate place of residence and who visited the domicile of the person in whose name the document was served, reaches the person in whose name the tax notice was to be served." Thus, the court below is just in holding that the above non-party 1 did not

In light of the above non-party 1's age and purpose of visiting the plaintiff's domicile on the day of receipt of the tax payment notice, the above non-party 1 should be deemed to have delivered it to the plaintiff on the day of receipt of the tax payment notice. However, the court below's decision that did not reach this point is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in violation of the rules of evidence, but it cannot be concluded that the above non-party 1 delivered it to the plaintiff

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)