National High Court Decision 2005Da3742 (Law No. 24, 2006)

Appropriateness of the assertion that the electronic notification method is illegal;

An application for electronic notification is valid as one of the methods verifying the identity of the person himself/herself, and as long as the application for electronic notification is filed, the application for electronic notification cannot be deemed unlawful.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

○ ○

1.Additional Director of the Tax Office

2.The Director of the North Korean Industrial Complex;

1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

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

The primary purport of the claim is that the imposition of 15,103,620 global income tax for the year 2006 by the director of the tax office of ○○○ on July 4, 2008 and the imposition of 18,88,360 won and 172,250,710 won of value-added tax for the year 2006 by the director of the tax office of ○○○○○○ on July 9, 2008 is invalid.

Preliminary purport of claim: The imposition of 15,103,620 global income tax for the year 2006 by the director of the tax office of ○○○ on July 4, 2008 and the imposition of 18,88,360 won and 172,250,710 won of value-added tax for the year 2006 by the director of the tax office of ○○○○○ on July 9, 2008 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the business of collecting and selling scrap metal in the trade name of ○○○○○○○○-dong 4164 from 4164.

B. On March 2008, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; (b) determined that: (c) the Plaintiff received processed tax invoices from the Plaintiff’s punishment ChoA and the rightB, the Plaintiff’s death money; and (d) received false tax invoices in excess of the actual purchase amount; and (e) received false tax invoices; and (e) unfairly included the difference between the amount received on a false tax invoice and the actual purchase amount in the sales price; and (e) notified the Defendants thereof.

C. Accordingly, on July 4, 2008, the head of Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office imposed KRW 15,103,620 upon the Plaintiff from the sales cost of the Plaintiff’s return by subtracting KRW 45,019,00 from KRW 45,00. The head of Defendant ○○○ Tax Office did not deduct KRW 152,550,000, which the Plaintiff had deducted from KRW 152,50,000, which was the amount of the Plaintiff’s deduction, and imposed KRW 18,888,360 on July 9, 2008 as the value-added tax for the first half of the year 2006 (hereinafter “the imposition disposition of global income tax by Defendant ○○ Tax Office and the imposition disposition of value-added tax by Defendant ○○ Tax Office for each of the instant dispositions”).

D. However, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition by electronic delivery, rather than by ordinary mail delivery method.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 10, 2008. On June 25, 2009, the Tax Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date the Plaintiff received a notice of each of the instant dispositions by electronic delivery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 14, 16 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

Article 18 of the Electronic Government Act (amended by Act No. 8448 of May 17, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 10(8) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Articles 6-2 and 6-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038 of Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038 of Feb. 18, 2010), in order for the tax authority to deliver a tax notice to taxpayers, it is necessary for the taxpayer to prepare and submit a home-based service application form by visiting the tax office directly to the National Tax Service, or by accessing the home-based digital signature to the National Tax Service website with an authorized electronic certificate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s digital signature application form cannot be applied for the same.

2) The Defendants

The plaintiff applied for electronic delivery method by accessing the plaintiff's authorized certificate on March 9, 2007 to the National Tax Service Home Site through the plaintiff's authorized certificate. Thus, the plaintiff's application for electronic delivery is lawful and it cannot be said that there is any defect in the electronic notice given accordingly. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The Electronic Government Act was enacted with the aim of improving the efficiency, productivity, and transparency of administration by electronically processing administrative affairs using information technology, and provides for the digitization of public services, such as the principle of realization and operation of electronic government, the digitization of administrative management, various applications for and reports, etc. The main contents of which are the e-government. According to Articles 33 and 35 of the Electronic Government Act, the head of an administrative agency, even where the relevant statutes stipulate that civil petitions, etc. shall be filed and filed in paper form, such as documents, can be filed and filed in electronic form. In such cases, where it is necessary to verify the identity of the applicant and report, he/she can verify the seafarer through a certified electronic signature or a method prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the Enforcement Decree of the Electronic Government Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20741, Feb. 29, 2008).

According to Article 44 of the Electronic Government Act, the head of the administrative agency can not request a civil petitioner to identify the resident registration card or an abstract of the resident registration card unless there is a special reason to do so, and instead can verify his/her identity by inputting data that can verify his/her identity such as credit card registration information by using telephone, computer and wireless communication.

In full view of the purpose of the enactment of the Electronic Government Act and each of the above provisions, it is possible to apply for electronic documents with respect to the matters that are required to be applied and reported by documents in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, including municipal ordinances for the convenience of the people who apply for and report various civil petitions, and in such cases, it is not possible to do so by means of official signature in identifying the applicants, but by other methods, i.e., notification of their identity by wire to administrative agencies or entry of their identity information on the website

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 as to the instant case, the Plaintiff applied for electronic notification by accessing the National Tax Service Home System website on March 9, 2007 through an authorized certificate, and an authorized certificate is a digital signature of the person who has issued the certificate pursuant to Article 15 of the Digital Signature Act, and the licensed certification authority can recognize facts corresponding to electronic records verifying the identity of the person who has been issued the certificate, and can file an application with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by electronic means, such as entering the computer, etc. In accordance with the attached statutes and the Framework Act on National Taxes, upon the Plaintiff’s application for electronic notification, there is no illegality in receiving the Plaintiff’s application for electronic notification from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service upon the Plaintiff’s request.

On this occasion, the plaintiff asserts that the above date and time were unlawful by entering the personal ID and passwords of the general public without the official document, and that the application for electronic notification was made by accessing the National Tax Service Home Site, and that the method of application for electronic notification was unlawful.

Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the fact that the Plaintiff applied for electronic notification by means of an authorized certificate itself, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion itself is admitted, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, access to the Plaintiff’s personal ID and password via the National Tax Service Home System’s website without using the authorized certificate is valid as one of the methods verifying the Plaintiff’s identity, and as long as the Plaintiff applied for electronic notification, it cannot be said that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s identity was confirmed and that the receipt of such electronic notification cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the application for electronic notification is null and void is without merit.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The defendants' assertion

The electronic notification against the Plaintiff is lawful. Since it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against each of the instant dispositions after the lapse of 90 days from the receipt of the electronic notification, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of each of the instant dispositions is unlawful as it did not go through legitimate pre-trial proceedings.

B. Determination

1) Administrative litigation seeking a revocation of tax disposition must necessarily go through a request for examination or adjudgment, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such case, a request for adjudication, etc. satisfies lawful requirements. Therefore, once a request for adjudication, etc. is filed after the deadline for request for adjudication, it cannot be deemed that

2) In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 14 and Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 3 as to the instant case, the imposition of global income tax by the head of defendant ○○○ Tax Office was served on the plaintiff’s e-mail address on July 4, 2008 and notified. The imposition of global income tax by the head of defendant ○○ Tax Office was served on the plaintiff’s e-mail address on July 9, 2008 and notified. The imposition of global income tax was imposed on the plaintiff’s e-mail address on July 6, 2008. The plaintiff can be acknowledged that the imposition of global income tax was made on July 6, 2008, and that the above imposition of global income tax was made on July 1

According to the above facts, the above imposition disposition of global income tax under the proviso of Article 12 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes takes effect on July 4, 2008, and the above imposition disposition of global income tax takes effect on July 9, 2008, respectively. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against each of the dispositions of this case on October 10, 2008, which is apparent that 90 days have passed since the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against each of the dispositions of this case on October 10, 2008. Thus, the above request for administrative appeal is clear that it has been filed with an

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is illegal because it did not go through legitimate procedure, and the defendants' defense prior to the main claim is justified.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.