Where a postal item is sent by means of registration and handling, it shall be deemed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time, except in extenuating circumstances, such as return.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that a tax notice of each disposition of this case was not served on the actual Plaintiff, unlike the computerized data of the National Tax Service.

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

2015-Gu Partnership-64955 Invalidity of Value-Added Tax Disposition

AA

O Head of tax office

2016.03.24

2016.21

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The value-added tax for the second term of December 1, 2004 imposed on the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 by the Defendant

Value-added Tax for the second term of the same year, OOO, and value-added tax for the second term of 2010

The imposition of the OO members is confirmed to be null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff has been engaged in lease business, such as OOOO 104 and 105 above four parcels of land, including Suwon-si OO-O, Suwon-si OO 1-3 above OO 101 above OO 101 above OO 101 above OOO dong, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

B. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was unfairly refunded value-added tax related to the above leasing business, and determined and notified the Plaintiff’s payment deadline as of December 31, 201, the value-added tax for the second term of 2004, the value-added tax for the second term of 2004, the value-added tax OO for the second term of 2004, and the value-added tax OO for the second term of 2010 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In this case where it is not confirmed that the Plaintiff signed and sealed the special mail delivery certificate under the Postal Service Act, etc., the Plaintiff did not have received a notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case from the Defendant, and each of the dispositions of this case is invalid.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds why the administrative disposition is null and void. Thus, the burden of proving that a tax disposition is null and void has not been served, or that a tax notice has been served to another address is served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

In the instant case, comprehensively considering the following circumstances, each written evidence No. 2-1 through 6, No. 2-2, No. 4, and No. 5, each of the instant dispositions was sent by registered mail to the Plaintiff on December 5, 201, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant dispositions is null and void on the ground of the defect of service, is without merit, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge the absence of service, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.

1) In the case of each of the dispositions of this case, the interest on the Plaintiff’s resident registration card.

On December 2, 2011, "O-O(O-O)", which is a real place of residence, is printed out from the post office to "10986250O'," "10986250OO'," "10986250OOO'," and "10986250OO'sO's, which was delivered on December 5, 201 by the recipient as the plaintiff himself/herself, is confirmed in the National Tax Service electronic data of the National Tax Service.

2) In the computerized information management office of the National Tax Service, transmitted daily to Korea Post since 2003.

It seems that the computerized data of the National Tax Service is consistent with the current service status data of registered post offices, and there is no reason to suspect that there is any falsity or error in the contents of the data.

3) Where a postal item is sent by means of registration and handling, barring special circumstances, such as return.

Around that time, each tax notice should be deemed to have been delivered to an addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3819, Mar. 27, 1992). Since the details that can be deemed to have been disposed of after the tax notice of each of the instant dispositions were not verified and the procedure for service by public notice was not followed, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above tax notices was delivered to the Plaintiff lawfully.

4) When one year has elapsed from the date of dispatch of mail under Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act, it cannot be deemed that there is a cause attributable to the Defendant not keeping the certificate of delivery of each tax notice at the time when the certificate of delivery of each of the instant dispositions cannot be filed. Thus, there is no ground to readily conclude the illegality of the collection procedure by deeming that there is no evidence regarding service other than the above electronic data solely on the ground that the above special mail delivery certificate is not kept. Even if Article 18(1) of the Postal Service Act provides that the certificate of delivery of the deferred special mail should be preserved and managed for 10 years, the above provision is merely an instruction, and it is in violation of the above provision, and thus, it does not necessarily become null

5) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not assert and prove any special circumstance that the notice of tax payment of each of the instant dispositions was not served on the actual Plaintiff, unlike the computerized data of the National Tax Service.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.