Early High Court Decision 2010236 (Law No. 1031, 2010)

The date of receipt by the security guard if the right to receive registered mail is implicitly delegated to the security guard.

In light of the fact that the security guards received and delivered the written notice of this case to the Plaintiff without any objection, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail to the Tax Tribunal without any objection, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit brought 90 days after the receipt of the written judgment by the security guards is unlawful.

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

△△△△△

The Director of the National Tax Service

August 10, 2011

September 7, 2011

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of Claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,216,188,950 against the Plaintiff on April 14, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a real estate lease and sales business self-registration (the opening date: March 1, 2008), and on June 12, 2008, a 129 units remaining excluding 11 units, such as a commercial building, 2-8 officetels, 2000 ground △△△△△ Officetel (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Jung-A on December 31, 2008, and closed the business on the same day.

B. On March 5, 2010, the Defendant: (a) considered that the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of JungA for the instant real estate constitutes a “supply of goods” under the Value-Added Tax Act; and (b) decided and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax of KRW 1,216,18,950 (including additional tax) in 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

“. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 9, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication”). [The grounds for recognition], [No dispute exists, Gap 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 2-1 of evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

As the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 6, 201, past 90 days from October 6, 201, when he was served with the instant written ruling, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

B. Determination

1) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc., but the period in which an administrative appeal is required shall be counted from the date on which the original copy of the written judgment is served. The "date on which the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc." does not mean the date on which the party becomes aware of the fact that the disposition was made by means of notice, public notice, or other methods, and it does not mean the date on which the party could have become aware of the fact. However, if the document stating the disposition is in a state where the party becomes aware of the disposition in terms of social norms due to service on his address, etc., it can be presumed that the person was aware of the disposition, unless there is any counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive registered mail items to apartment security guards if special mail items, such as registered mail, are delivered on apartment, and apartment security guards have received and delivered it to the residents. In this respect, if apartment residents have not raised any objection with respect to such special mail delivery method, it is reasonable to view that apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive registered mail items to the apartment security guards. Thus, apartment security guards may regard the date of receipt of registered mail items from the mail office carrier as the date of receipt by apartment residents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 20

2) On the premise of these legal principles, the Tax Tribunal sent the written ruling of this case to the Plaintiff’s address by registered mail, and the Plaintiff’s address (BB) received the written ruling of this case on October 6, 2010. In addition, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 and 2-2, the Defendant sent the written ruling of this case to the Plaintiff’s address by registered mail, and the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s address on April 14, 2010 and delivered the written ruling of this case to the Plaintiff on July 9, 2010. In light of this, the Plaintiff can be duly acknowledged that the Plaintiff filed a request for judgment with the Tax Tribunal on July 20, 2010, without raising any objection, and the Plaintiff could have received the written ruling of this case to the Plaintiff’s address from the Plaintiff’s address to the Plaintiff’s address and delivered the written ruling to the Plaintiff’s 10 security guards (the Plaintiff’s address to the Plaintiff’s address and the Plaintiff’s address to the Plaintiff’s address.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case brought on January 6, 201 after the expiration of 90 days from October 6, 2010, which was brought on January 6, 201, was filed after the expiration of the period for filing the lawsuit, is illegal and therefore, the defendant's main defense on this point is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.