Plaintiff

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

September 4, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 5, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 69,679,270 for the Plaintiff on April 5, 2013 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) the Seoul Central District Court: (b) sold 1/4 shares of the land at the voluntary auction procedure of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), and (number 6 omitted); and (c) acquired ownership on March 6, 2001, at the Seoul Central District Court’s 200 another Special Metropolitan City District Court’s 1/4 shares of the said land at the voluntary auction procedure of 200 another and 1/4 shares of the said land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the ground of the instant land, ○○○○○ Officetel (hereinafter “instant officetel”) was not owned by the Plaintiff. On May 2007, the Plaintiff transferred 1/4 shares of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff to the said officetel residents, and paid KRW 582,00,000 for the transfer price, and KRW 750,000 for the use of the said land from March 6, 2001 to the time of transfer (hereinafter “instant key income”), but the Plaintiff did not file a comprehensive income tax on the said land portion.

C. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the instant key income received by the Plaintiff constituted “other income” under Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act as the land rent, which is the consideration for the creation of statutory superficies, and accordingly, corrected and decided the Plaintiff’s global income tax amounting to KRW 69,679,270 for the year 2007, and served on May 27, 2013 the said tax payment notice (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”).

D. On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 10, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is valid

A. Determination on the validity of the instant tax payment notice

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant’s staff member visited the Plaintiff’s domicile on May 9, 2013 and the 12th of the same month, but served the instant tax payment notice due to the Plaintiff’s absence. However, although the Defendant’s staff member was not clear whether the Plaintiff actually visited the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Defendant’s staff member sent the Plaintiff’s letters to the Plaintiff’s Handphone, the Plaintiff did not receive such letters, and the service by public notice is illegal as failing to meet the requirements for service by public notice.

Sheet-Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

【Recognition of Recognition

① After making the instant disposition as of April 5, 2013, the Defendant perused the Plaintiff’s certificate of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea on May 8, 2013 to serve a tax notice on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff confirmed that there was no departure from Korea until October 28, 2013 after the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on August 15, 2012.

② In order to serve the instant tax notice on May 9, 2013 and around 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2013 and around 10:00 a.m. on May 9, 2013, the employee in charge of the Defendant visited Yongsan-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), which is the Plaintiff’s domicile, but the said notice could not be served due to the Plaintiff’s absence, and instead, the employee in charge of the Defendant posted a notice of arrival on the house entrance (the employee in charge of the Defendant affixed a photograph attached the Plaintiff’s notice of arrival at the time of visiting the house; however, the employee in charge of the Defendant affixed a photograph attached the Plaintiff’s notice of arrival at the address of the Plaintiff on May 12, 2013.).

③ Accordingly, the Defendant publicly announced the instant tax payment notice on May 13, 2013.

④ After that, around 14:10 on May 13, 2013, the Defendant’s employee attempted to make a call using the Plaintiff’s Handphone (on hand phone omitted) and sent the Plaintiff’s Handphone (on May 21, 2013: 13:28, the Defendant’s employee sent the Defendant’s Handphone and a guidance message for service by publication [including the phone phone number omitted)] on May 13, 2013, according to the Defendant’s Handphone and the Handphone (on May 21, 2013: 14:10:27 to 58 seconds (on May 21, 2013: 10%).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 3-1, Eul's evidence 1-8 (including Serial number), the whole purport of pleading

· Judgment

Article 7-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that service by public notice may be conducted where a tax official visited a taxpayer two or more times to deliver a document, but it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date for payment because of the absence of the recipient. According to the above acknowledged facts, since the defendant's employee can be recognized that the plaintiff had visited the plaintiff's domicile two times after confirming that the plaintiff was in Korea and intended to deliver a tax notice, but the plaintiff could not serve a document due to the absence of the plaintiff, service by public notice of tax notice of this case is legitimate, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to reverse the above recognition,

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax notice became effective on May 13, 2013 on the 27th day of the same month after the 14th day elapsed.

B. Determination as to whether key income is subject to income tax

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is null and void since the main issue income of this case is the non-resident of this case's studio's tort caused by illegal possession of the plaintiff's land, and that the disposition of this case is not effective. Considering the overall purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 2 and 3 of this case's 2 and 3, the plaintiff and non-party 2 and 3 acquired ownership by winning a successful bid in the auction process on March 6, 2001. On March 2003, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the resident of this case's studio (the resident of this case's studio) to claim the payment of rent and other charges from the court on the land of this case for the ownership of the building (studio). The plaintiff, non-party 2 and non-party 3 were obligated to return the land's 1 and non-party 2's 3's studio's studio's 2 and non-party 3'the above issue and non-party 3's 1'the above land purchase issue.

(c) Whether the imposition of additional tax is lawful;

The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) even if global income tax is imposed on the key income of the Plaintiff, the imposition of additional tax is unreasonable because it was not attributable to the Plaintiff, since it was more than seven years after the cause for taxation occurred; (b) the Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax is unreasonable. In other words, Article 26-2(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that “if a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return, a national tax may be levied for seven years from the date on which the relevant national tax can be imposed; and (c) the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return on the key income of the instant case, as seen earlier, the tax authority may decide the tax base including additional tax within the statutory due date of imposition of national tax, and thus, the imposition of additional tax cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the disposition authority delayed the determination of the tax base.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)

1) In accordance with the purport of the Plaintiff’s complaint, brief, and date of pleading as well as the entire purport of pleadings, the Plaintiff is disputing the validity of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 69,679,270 against the Plaintiff as of April 5, 2013, which was rendered by the Defendant as of April 5, 2013.