Whether service of a written decision is legitimate or not;

The plaintiff asserted that the decision of examination and decision received by the non-party Mao-C is an act of receiving a person without authority, but the Mao-C is deemed to be an employee or an employee and at least a person delegated with the authority to receive from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed because it is obvious that the period of filing

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 120,085,815 against the plaintiff on 2002 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a tax-free business entity that runs the agricultural product processing and storage business for its business purposes, and filed an application for refund of total of KRW 172,785,586 (hereinafter “instant input tax amount”) at the time of filing the final return of value-added tax on January 2002.

B. The Defendant deemed the total amount of the application for refund as the common purchase tax, and thus, issued a correction and notification of KRW 42,136,232 as the value-added tax for January 2002.

C. After that, among the 00 regional tax office’s regular audit of the Defendant on February 2004, the Plaintiff pointed out that the Plaintiff did not settle the instant input tax amount at the time of filing the final return of value-added tax for the second period of 2002. Accordingly, the Defendant did not deduct KRW 114,676,556 as the tax-free input tax amount, and notified the Defendant of KRW 16,854,380 as the value-added tax for the second period of 2002, including the penalty tax, on January 05, 2005.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the imposition of value-added tax, and 00 regional tax office filed an objection against the foregoing objection, and the Defendant made a disposition to reduce or correct the total amount of KRW 46,768,565 in accordance with the purport of the above decision (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which deducts KRW 46,768.565, which was reduced or corrected from the total amount of KRW 16,768.380 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 20, 2005. However, on September 30, 2005, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the said request for review (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of this case," and the "written decision" was referred to as the "written decision of this case"), and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition on January 17, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case was filed after 90 days from the date of notification of the decision in this case, and the plaintiff's 00 pre-paid sentence of the plaintiff's representative is illegal, but the plaintiff's 00 pre-paid sentence of the 00th pre-paid sentence of the plaintiff's representative, and the above 00th sentence was received in order to see the above children's children in the dormitory within the company where the new 00 children reside. The above 00th sentence is not the plaintiff's office clerk or employee, not the plaintiff's living together with the above new 00, and therefore the service of the written decision in this case against the plaintiff is illegal

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings by Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2, or records are evident.

(1) On 195, the sentence of the representative of the plaintiff was divorced on 1997.03.11. after the marriage on 1995.

(2) At around 14:35 on October 11, 2005, 100, Professor 00 received the written decision of this case at 000 - 000 - 000 on the previous Yongnam-gun, the Plaintiff’s workplace. In this case, Don Don-gu, the addressee of the instant written decision of this case, was in a fluorial relationship with the company employees.

(3) On December 12, 2006, the instant reply was delivered to the Plaintiff’s workplace at around 14:00 on December 12, 2006, and at that time, 00 was sent to the Plaintiff’s workplace, and the instant reply was received after indicating the relationship between the Plaintiff’s place of business, office, office, or employee “in the column of service,” 2-2.

(4) On 13:00 on 19.06. 19. 2006, a notice of the date for preparatory pleading was served on the Plaintiff’s place of business at around 13:00 on 19. 19. 206, and at that time, 100 was served on the Plaintiff’s place of business at around 13:0, stating “the method of service” as “the person’s address and the person living together,” and received the above notice.

D. Determination

The Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when a person to receive documents is not present at a place where documents are to be served, documents may be served to his/her employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgment. Meanwhile, when a person to receive documents, such as a taxpayer, etc. liable for duty payment, has expressly or implicitly delegated the right to receive postal items and other documents to another person, the delegated person shall be deemed to have received the documents, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully served the documents on the person to receive the documents, and the delegated person shall not necessarily have the right to receive documents, nor shall he/she be an employee or a person living together with the delegating person (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du164, Jul. 04,

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, i.e., the number of new 00 persons who are the representative of the plaintiff; the place at which gate00 received is the Plaintiff’s workplace; and the place at which gate00 received is the Plaintiff’s workplace; the “company partner” or “office member” in the relevant column upon receipt of the instant written decision and the written reply; the entire gate00 received the said documents even at intervals of not less than 6 months from the time after the delivery of the instant written decision and the date of preparatory pleading until the date of delivery of the written reply or the written notification of preparatory date for pleading; the date of receipt of 13:00 is all ordinary; uf00 p. 14:35 p.m., uf00 p. 13:00 p.m., which is the representative of the plaintiff; and even if not, the service on the above gate00 constitutes a person delegated with the authority to receive it from the plaintiff; thus, the service on the above gate is lawful.

However, the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case from October 11, 2005, which was served 90 days after the delivery of the written decision of this case, is identical to the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case in this case from October 17, 2006, which is apparent, as seen above. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed after the lapse of the filing period under the main sentence of Article 56(3) of the Framework Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Basic Act

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

Documents as prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office [in the case of service by means of information and communications networks (hereinafter referred to as "electronic service"), referring to electronic mail address (where stored in national tax information and communications networks, referring to any place accessible by means of an identification mark of the holder of the title deed)] of the designated person (referring to the person designated as the recipient of the documents; hereinafter the same shall apply].

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

(1) Documents provided for in Article 8 shall be served by means of delivery, mail or electronic delivery.

(2) When any document relating to a notification, demand or disposition for arrears of a tax payment, or an order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts is served by mail, it shall be served by registered mail.

(3) Service of documents by delivery shall be made by delivering the documents to the persons to be served with the documents at the place where such documents are to be served: Provided, That if the persons to be served with the documents refuse, they may be delivered at other places.

(4) In cases of paragraphs (2) and (3), if a person to receive a document is not present at the place where the document is to be served, it may be served to his/her employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgement; if the person to receive the document, his/her employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgement refuses the receipt of document without justifiable grounds, the document may be placed at the place where the document is to be served.

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

① 제55조에 규정하는 처분에 대하여는 행정심판법의 규정을 적용하지 아니한다. 다만, 동법 제11조 ·제12조 · 제16조· 제20조 및 제26조의 규정은 심사청구 또는 심판청구에 대하여 이를 준용하되, 이 경우 "위원회"는 "국세심사위원회", "국세심판관회의" 또는 "국세심판관합동회의"로 본다.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18 (1), and Articles 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the administrative litigation under paragraph (2) shall be instituted within ninety days after decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified: Provided, That where decision is not notified within the period of decision prescribed in Article 65 (2) or the proviso of Article 81, the administrative litigation may be initiated from the date the prescribed period of decision expires even before the decision is notified.