Gwangju District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-13215 (No. 19, 2017)

A written notice of tax payment to persons confined in correctional institutions shall be served upon the domicile of such persons pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, except in extenuating circumstances.

In the absence of special circumstances, a notice of tax payment to a person who is confined in prison shall be served at his/her domicile pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and a notice of tax payment shall be served at his/her domicile as the person who can be identified at his/her domicile was duly served.

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

2017Nu3167 Gross income and revocation of disposition

Article 56 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016)

It is unlawful as it has been filed without filing an appeal under paragraph (2).

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

AA

○ Head of tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Guhap13215 Decided January 19, 2017

2017.20

2017.08.24

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's assignment to the plaintiff for the business year of 200 . 0 . 20 . 20 .

The imposition of global income tax on ○○, and the imposition of additional tax on 200. ○○.

each subparagraph shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the founder of a school juristic person BB private teaching institute (hereinafter referred to as “BB private teaching institute”), and the BB private teaching institute is operating a CCC university (formerCC junior college, CC university) located in ○○○-ro, ○○, ○○, with the authorization of establishment from the Ministry of Education on 00. 19.

B. The Ministry of Education conducted an audit on around 190. Around 190. BB private teaching institutes andCC and a junior college. As a result, the Plaintiff requested the Private Teaching Institutes to take corrective measures against illegal and unjust matters, such as the return of school expenses and basic property for profit-making use used for the purpose that the Plaintiff could not know, but the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective measures and was appointed a temporary director to the Private Teaching Institutes. The Plaintiff submitted to the Private Teaching Institutes of BB to the Private Teaching Institutes of 200. In order to implement DD won for non-contribution of basic property for profit-making use, the Plaintiff submitted to the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development a plan to contribute in kind the FFF hotel (hereinafter referred to as “EE Tourism”) owned by the Private-Liability EE Tourism (hereinafter referred to as “EE Tourism”).

D. BBA received a gift of FF hotel from 000. 200. ○. EE Tourism, and included FF hotel as a basic property for profit, and EE tourism closed on 00. ○. ○. ○. 200.

E. The Defendant conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax on EE tourism from 2000. to 200.0.00.0.0.0.0.0.00, the Defendant: (a) conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax on EE tourism; (b) conducted the Plaintiff’s contribution DNA resources to be performed by the Plaintiff, the founder of the BB private teaching institute, on behalf of EE tourism, denied wrongful calculation pursuant to Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act; and (c) disposed of the same amount as other income of the Plaintiff.

F. The Defendant decided and notified 00. 200. 0. 0. 2000 and 2000 won to the Plaintiff according to the above disposal of income (hereinafter “instant 1 disposition”).

G. The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay additional 00 won on the ground of the unpaid global income tax in accordance with the instant disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition No. 2,” and hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) on April 20, 200.

H. The Plaintiff visited the GG Tax Office on 200. 0. 200. 200. The Plaintiff issued a statement of payment on the global income tax ○○ and additional dues 200 years, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on 200. 0. 200. However, the Tax Tribunal rejected the appeal on 200. 20. 200. The Plaintiff’s appeal on 200. 200. 30.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 13, 15, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's main defense

As the Plaintiff’s domicile on his resident registration, the Defendant sent a notice of tax payment of the instant disposition No. 1 on 2000, and received the instant disposition No. 2 on 200, HH on 200, and on 00, 3 received the notice of tax payment of each of the instant dispositions on 200,000, 3, a person living together with the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff received the notice of tax payment or demand notice of each of the instant dispositions on 90 days from 90 days before the appeal is filed, the Defendant’s main safety claim of the instant lawsuit was unlawful. (1) The Defendant’s main safety claim of the instant lawsuit was filed on 10 days after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with 90 days prior to the appeal period, and ② whether the instant lawsuit is unlawful due to the Plaintiff’s failure to go through a legitimate appeal by filing a request for adjudication on 90 days prior to the appeal period, but it is reasonable as the instant lawsuit is subject to the Defendant’s relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) At the time of October 200, the Defendant issued a notice of tax payment of the first disposition of this case to ○○○○○-ro, ○○○○○-dong (○○○, ○ apartment), which is the Plaintiff’s domicile on the Plaintiff’s resident registration (hereinafter “the domicile of this case”). On October 201, 200, HH was called “the relation with the Plaintiff” and received a notice of tax payment of the first disposition of this case.

2) The Defendant sent a letter of demand for the second disposition of this case to the domicile of this case on 2000. 0. ○, and on 200. 0, three were to receive a letter of demand for the second disposition of this case on the ground that the third person's relationship with the Plaintiff was "parent" at the domicile of this case.

3) From 200. to 200.0.00., the Plaintiff was registered as “the relative of the JJ” at the domicile of the instant case, and from 200.0 to 200.0, the Plaintiff was registered as “the person living together with the JJ at the domicile of the instant case.” However, the Plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship with the JJ, and HH was the child of the JJ, and HH was the child of the JJ, and III was the child of the JJ.

4) The period during which the Plaintiff, JJ, HH and III was registered as a resident in the domicile of the instant case is as follows.

5) The details of entry and departure from HH’s 200 . through H’s 20 . through 00 . . 00 . 6 are as follows. The Plaintiff was detained on 00 . 0 . ○○, and was released on 20 . ○ . ○○. 20 . 3’s penal term expiration.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 7, 9 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides the period for a request for a trial as to a disposition, refers to the date when a person, other than the party to the disposition or a person who is provided for by the Act and subordinate statutes, files an objection or a request for a trial by means of notification, public announcement, or other methods, and the period shall be calculated as of the date of receipt of the notice of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1164, Jul. 4, 200). Meanwhile, the Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act (Service on Detained Persons, etc.) or the provisions concerning delivery of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the service of a notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc. is made as his/her domicile, residence, place of business, or office. In such cases, if the person fails to serve at that place, then the notice of tax payment can be served by his/her employee or person living together (see, etc.).

A move-in registered domicile shall be included in the same unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du1161, Apr. 10, 1998).

In addition, in cases where a person to receive documents, such as a person liable for duty payment, etc., who is the other party to the tax disposition, has expressly or explicitly delegated the authority to receive postal items and other documents to other persons, the delegated person shall be deemed to have received the relevant documents, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully delivered the relevant documents to the person to receive the documents, and the delegated person shall not necessarily have to be an employee or a person living together with the purport of the entire pleadings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1164, Jul. 4, 200). In full view of the following circumstances, the notice of tax payment of the first disposition of this case shall be deemed to have been duly delivered on October 20, 200.

① The Plaintiff asserts that he actually resided in CCC University ○ Campus that he had his resident registration to his domicile, which is his domicile in JJ due to inevitable circumstances of his business. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s resident registration shall be deemed to have been transferred to his domicile in the instant case for his convenience. In addition to the circumstances that the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant domicile except for the period of one month from 000:0 to 00,000 (from 200,000 to 20,000), the Plaintiff’s domicile as prescribed in Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which had been registered as his resident registration, is deemed to be the domicile in the instant case.

② Even if the Plaintiff was detained from October 20, 200 to April 200, the notice of tax payment or demand notice of each of the dispositions of this case is not required to be served to the prison warden. Thus, the Plaintiff’s address under Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which must send a tax notice or demand notice of each of the dispositions of this case, is deemed to be the domicile of this case.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s notification or demand notice of each of the instant dispositions was unlawful, although the employee in charge of GG Tax Office or HHH Tax Office visited the ○ prison, which was confined by the Plaintiff on 2000, to investigate the first disposition, and the Plaintiff knew of the fact that the Plaintiff was confined to the ○ prison. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the employee in charge of GG Tax Office or HHH Tax Office visited the ○ prison, which was confined by the Plaintiff on 2000, and visited the Plaintiff to conduct an investigation on the first disposition, it is difficult to view that the delivery of each of the instant dispositions or demand notice to the address of the instant prison was unlawful.

③ The Plaintiff was registered as a resident in the instant domicile from 200,000, prior to the date of detention on 200,000, to 200,000, and the Plaintiff was registered as a resident in the instant domicile (from 200,000 to 20,00) JJ, JJ, HH, and III) during the period from 20,000 to 20,000,000 to 20,000, and both JJ, HH, and III were registered as a resident in the instant domicile while the Plaintiff was registered as a resident in the instant domicile after the detention. As such, HH and III was either a person living together with the Plaintiff or at least the householder or mother of JJ at the place of residence of the instant case, the Plaintiff delegated not only the JJ but also H and III’s authority to receive postal items.

On the other hand, HH, upon receipt of the notice of tax payment of Disposition 1 of this case, resided in China, engaged in the business, and entered the domicile of this case without residing in the domicile of this case, and received the notice of tax payment of Disposition 1 of this case, and thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as living together with the plaintiff, and it cannot be delegated with the right to receive postal items from the plaintiff. However, HH entered on 200, and stayed in Korea on 200,00, and HH voluntarily received the notice of tax payment of Disposition 1 of this case, and it is insufficient to reverse the above judgment solely on the ground that the plaintiff asserted that HH was "the relationship with the plaintiff when receiving the notice of tax payment of Disposition 1 of this case."

④ HH and III did not refuse to receive a notice or demand notice of each of the dispositions of this case, and it stated that the relationship with the Plaintiff is 'child' or 'parent', so HH and III appears to have been able to distinguish the interest at the time of receiving a notice or demand notice of each of the dispositions of this case (On the other hand, the Plaintiff alleged that HH and III could not distinguish the interest because he suffered from heart disease and mental illness at the time of receiving a demand notice of the second disposition of this case (On the other hand, it is insufficient to reverse the judgment that C could distinguish the interest at the time of receiving a demand notice of the second disposition of this case).

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case with the Tax Tribunal on 2000. 20 days after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of each of the dispositions of this case by serving a notice of tax payment of this case No. 1 and a notice of demand for the second disposition