[1] In a case where a tax official puts a tax payment notice due to a crepans in a tax office, whether a tax payment notice is appropriate (negative)

[2] Whether it is necessary to serve a tax notice even where a taxpayer already knows the details of a tax disposition (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a taxpayer intentionally avoided the receipt of a tax payment notice and a tax official puts a tax payment notice in a crepit, whether it can be deemed legitimate service of a tax payment notice under the good faith principle (negative)

[1] The delivery of a tax payment notice must be carried out by the taxpayer or a person in a certain relationship with the taxpayer or his/her family members in reality. Thus, if the tax official served a tax payment notice in a way of inserting the apartment door with the knowledge that the taxpayer and his/her family members are absent, the service of such tax payment notice is illegal and invalid in violation of Article 10 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996) and thus becomes invalid.

[2] The provisions of Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467 of Dec. 31, 1994) shall be applied strictly to ensure the fairness of tax administration by allowing the disposition authority to exclude the person and make a careful and reasonable disposition in accordance with the large principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby ensuring the fairness of tax administration, and at the same time, to ensure the taxpayer’s detailed notification of the details of the disposition of taxation, to make the decision on whether to object, and to ensure convenience in filing an objection. Therefore, even if the taxpayer already knows the contents of the disposition of taxation, the service of the tax notice may not be deemed unnecessary.

[3] It cannot be deemed that a tax official inevitably puts a tax payment notice in the apartment crepans of the taxpayer's apartment crepans, thereby making it difficult for the tax official to serve the notice to avoid the receipt of the tax payment notice as the taxpayer's exclusion period is imminent.

[1] Articles 8 (1) and 10 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996) / [2] Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 (see the current Article 83) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 183 (see the current Article 149) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [3] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Articles 8 (1) and 10 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996)

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da204 delivered on September 24, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3172) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu725 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3171) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu243 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong1986, 246), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu404 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong198, 516), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu796 delivered on November 10, 198 (Gong190, 318)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

The Head of Gangnam District Tax Office (Attorney Lee Byung-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu12936 delivered on February 13, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney and defendant's litigation performer are also examined.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the service of tax payment notice

Article 10 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same) provides that service of documents shall be made by delivery or mail (Paragraph 1); service of documents by delivery shall be made by a public official belonging to the administrative agency concerned by delivering documents to the person to be served with the documents at the place to be served with the documents (Paragraph 3); service of documents may be made by a public official belonging to the agency to be served with the person to be served with the documents at the place to be served with the documents (Paragraph 4); service of documents may be made to the person to be served with the person to be served with the reasonable interest (Paragraph 6); service of documents shall be made by the person to be served with the documents after signing and sealing the documents (Article 11(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). If a person to be served with the documents refuses service at his domicile or place of business, delivery of documents shall be made by taking into comprehensive account the contents of the provisions and Article 31 of the 11 of the Postal Service Act, Article 428 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

As determined by the court below, if a public official belonging to the defendant served a notice of tax payment in the plaintiff's apartment crecretion with the knowledge that the plaintiff and his family members were absent, the service of the notice of tax payment concerning the disposition of this case is in violation of the provisions of Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus,

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

2. On the date of the imposition disposition, the hearing of the court below and the violation of the rules of evidence

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the head of a tax office or a head of a Si/Gun intends to collect a national tax, he/she shall issue a written notice specifying the taxable year, tax item, tax amount and calculation basis of the national tax, tax payment deadline and place. Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) provide that the Government shall provide that the government shall notify in writing the tax base and tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters determined pursuant to Articles 117 through 120 of the Act and the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be notified to the taxpayer in accordance with the large principle under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Framework Act on National Taxes, and shall provide the taxpayer with a more careful and reasonable disposition to the taxpayer in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law.

On the premise of the opposing opinion, the decision of the court below is without merit, and there is no need to further examine whether there is a violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

3. As to the violation of the good faith principle

In order to avoid the tax payment notice due to the expiration of the exclusion period, the taxpayer's promise to receive the notice, part of it, and it cannot be deemed that the public official belonging to the defendant inevitably puts the plaintiff's apartment door into the plaintiff's apartment door and served the notice on the principle of trust and good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da204 delivered on September 24, 1996). Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of trust and good faith or failing to deliberate as alleged in the judgment of the court below. The argument is without merit.

4. 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)