Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 ( October 13, 2010)

Seoul High Court 2008Nu12926 ( October 22, 2009)

Where documents related to the service of a notice are discarded, the burden of proving the service of the notice.

Even if documents related to the service of the notice were discarded, in light of the resident registration of the plaintiff and his family members and the progress of the disposition on default by the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the notice was delivered lawfully to the plaintiff's family, unless there

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

KimE

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and it is confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 548,931,790 imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff on March 16, 1991 is null and void.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned 30 lots of land, including 00 ○○○-dong 281-23 483 m2, and 30 m2. From 1987 to 1990, the Plaintiff transferred all the said 30 lots of land.

B. On March 16, 1991, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 548,931,790 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in relation to the transfer of land on the said 30th of March 16, 1991 (i.e., KRW 14,563,504 in 198 + KRW 7,187,801 in 198 + KRW 48,898,154 in 198 + KRW 38,282,31 in 190).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

At the time of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff himself was detained in the detention house and his family members were residing in other places regardless of 912 △△△△△ apartment, 501 Do 802 (hereinafter referred to as "the domicile of this case"), △△△△△-dong, 912 △△△△△-dong, 501 Do 802 (hereinafter referred to as "the domicile of this case"), which was the plaintiff's resident, failed to receive a tax payment notice on the disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case") that appears to have been delivered to the domicile of this case at that time.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Under the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); since special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act and the provisions concerning service of the Civil Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis, a notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served at an address, temporary domicile, place of business or office pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes unless there are special circumstances. In such cases, if a person who is served at the detention house, etc. is not present at that place, it may be served at that place as an employee or a person who is able to identify the person as a deceased person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu351, Aug. 11, 1995; 96Da23184, Mar. 18, 199; 10 of the same Act shall be served on the person at that place (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da19797, supra.).

“(2) However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, Gap evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8, the plaintiff's wife No. 27, Dec. 7, 1989; the plaintiff's mother Eul-B was 5, Jul. 27, 1989; the plaintiff's children's KimCC and KimD were transferred to 20, Dec. 20, 1989, and the plaintiff's family No. 1 were delivered to the plaintiff No. 1, 1991, and the plaintiff's family Nos. 1, 200, and 1, 300,000 were no more than 1,000,000,0000,000 were delivered to the plaintiff's family No. 1, 29,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.