Whether service of documents is lawful

A person to whom the authority to receive documents is delegated shall not be required to be an employee or a person living together of the delegating person.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 120,085,815 against the plaintiff on February 2002 against the plaintiff on 05.05.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that runs the agricultural product processing and storage business as its business objective. The Plaintiff applied for the refund of KRW 172,785,586 in total at the time of filing the final return of value added tax in January 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant input tax amount”). The Defendant considered the total amount of the application for refund as the common purchase tax amount, and subsequently corrected and notified KRW 42,136,232 as the value added tax for the first year in 202.

B. After that, the Gwangju Regional Tax Office pointed out that the Plaintiff did not settle the instant input tax amount at the time of filing a final return of the second year surtax on 2002 from among the regular audit conducted by the Defendant on 004.03.03, the Defendant did not deduct the amount of KRW 114,676,556 as the tax-free input tax amount, and then corrected and notified the amount of KRW 16,854,380 as the additional tax on 202, including the additional tax, on 205.05.

C. In relation to the above disposition of imposing the additional tax, ○○ regional tax office did not accept part of the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce and correct the sum of KRW 46,768,565 in accordance with the purport of the above decision (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which deducts KRW 46,768,565, which was reduced and corrected from KRW 166,85,815, which was reduced and corrected from KRW 166,84,380 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 20, 2005 against the instant disposition. On September 30, 2005, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the said petition for review (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of this case", and the "decision of this case") on September 30, 2005, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition on January 17, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserted that the lawsuit in this case was filed 90 days after the plaintiff was notified of the decision in this case, and that the period for filing the lawsuit in this case was illegal after the lapse of 90 days, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff's delivery of the decision in this case against the plaintiff was invalid because Dol 00, which was the pre-paid son's pre-paid son's pre-paid son's son and son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 34, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 11, and testimony of the witness of the trial court 100 (Provided, That the part which is not believed later is excluded), or it is obvious in the records that the whole purport of the arguments is examined as to the head of the investigation office ○○○○○○○ in the court 19, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 30, Eul evidence 32-1, and some testimonys of the witness of the trial court 100 are not believed, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

(1) After marriage on 00 and 1995.25, which is the Plaintiff’s former representative director, married on 1995.03.11., from around 2004 to around 004, Doo-gun, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and 000-00, a house attached to the Plaintiff’s business place located in the ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○00-00, which is located in the ○○○○, ○○, ○00, which is the Plaintiff’s former representative director (hereinafter referred to as the “instant house”) and the Plaintiff’s former representative director, Doo00 returned to the instant house after having prepared a her her her her her her her s

(2) The Plaintiff’s place of business is located in the order near the entrance, where the 1st floor building is operated and the freezing storage is located, and the operation of the 1st floor building is located in the instant house, the joint office, the destroyed drying house, and the mashing factory from the nearest direction to the entrance.

(3) 신00은 거의 사무실에 출근하지 않았고 직원들도 현장에 있어서 사무실을 비운 상태였으며, 주로 문00이 이 사건 주택에 있는 시간동안에 우편집배원이 원고에게 우편물을 배달하러 왔고, 사업장에서 일하는 아주머니들로 구성된 일용근로자들은 우편물 수령을 거절하고 이 사건 주택에 있는 직원에게 우편물배달을 요청하였기 때문에 우편집배원이 사업장 사무실에 직원이 없으면 이 사건 주택으로 와 문00에게 등기우편물 등 우편물을 건넸고 문00은 수령한 우편물을 주로 원고의 사업장 사무실 책상에 올려놓거나 이 사건 주택의 테이블에 놓아두기도 하였으며, 약 7,8년 전 부터 2007.07. 경까지 원고의 우편물을 계속 수령하였고, ○○○○우체국 소속 우편집배원들도 문00을 원고 대표이사의 가족 또는 직원으로 알고 있었다.

(4) On October 11, 2005, 14:35, the Plaintiff’s workplace received the written decision of this case, which was delivered by a member of the office affiliated with ○○○○○ post office, at the time of receipt of the written decision of this case, answer was given that it was in the relationship of company rent with the new 00, the addressee of the written decision of this case.

On December 14, 2006, the defendant's response to the lawsuit of this case was served as the plaintiff's workplace at around 14:00 on December 12, 2006. At that time, "the delivery method" column 2-2, "the plaintiff's business office, office, or employee" was stated in "the plaintiff's business office" column and received the above written response. The date for preparatory pleading, which was scheduled to proceed on July 16:00 on June 19, 2006, was served as the plaintiff's above business office at around 13:00 on June 19, 2006. At this time, "the defendant's response to the lawsuit of this case was served as the plaintiff's business office at around 14:00, stating "the person's address and residence" column, and "the representative director at the time stated the above notice as "the number of years" and "the director at 00 on June 23, 2006, 2006.

D. Determination

Article 10(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if a person to receive documents is unable to do so at the place where the documents are to be served, the document may be served to such employee or a person who is able to distinguish the period of time. Meanwhile, if a person to receive documents, such as a taxpayer subject to taxation, explicitly or implicitly delegates the right to receive postal items and other documents to another person, the delegated person shall be deemed to have received the document, and the delegated person shall not be necessarily an employee of the delegated person or a person living together (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du1164, Jul. 04, 200). Since the above facts are recognized as follows, the document was delivered at the expiration of 0: 00 Du100, the former representative director of the plaintiff's office, and the document was delivered at the expiration of 000 Du100,000,000,000 won or more, and the document was received at the expiration of 00,000 won or more, respectively, to receive the document of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Basic Act

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

Documents as prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office (in the case of service by means of information and communications networks (hereinafter referred to as "electronic service"), referring to the electronic mail address (in the case of service by means of information and communications networks, referring to the place accessible by means of using an identification mark of the holder of a title deed; hereinafter referred to as "domicile or business office") of the designated person (referring to the person designated as the recipient of the documents;

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

(1) Documents provided for in Article 8 shall be served by delivery, mail or electronic delivery.

(2) When it is intended to serve by mail documents related to the notification, demand, disposition on default of a tax payment, or order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts, such documents shall be served by registered mail.

(3) Service of documents by delivery shall be made by delivering the documents to the persons to be served with the documents at the place where such documents are to be served: Provided, That if the persons to be served with the documents refuse, they may be delivered at other places.

(4) In cases of paragraphs (2) and (3), if a person to receive a document is not present at the place where the document is to be served, it may be served to his/her employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgement; if the person to receive the document, his/her employee and other workers or a person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgement refuses the receipt of document without justifiable grounds, the document may be placed at the place where the document is to be served.

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

① 제55조에 규정하는 처분에 대하여는 행정심판법의 규정을 적용하지 아니한다. 다만, 동법 제11조 ·제12조 · 제16조· 제20조 및 제26조의 규정은 심사청구 또는 심판청구에 대하여 이를 준용하되, 이 경우 "위원회"는 "국세심사위원회", "국세심판관회의" 또는 "국세심판관합동회의"로 본다.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the main sentence of Article 18 (1), and Articles 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the administrative litigation under paragraph (2) shall be instituted within ninety days after decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified: Provided, That where decision is not notified within the period of decision prescribed in Article 65 (2) or the proviso of Article 81, the administrative litigation may be initiated from the date the prescribed period of decision expires even before the decision is notified.