The responsibility to prove and prove the grounds for invalidation in a lawsuit seeking nullification and the method of serving a tax notice on a detention house, etc.

In a lawsuit seeking nullification, the plaintiff shall be liable to prove the grounds for invalidation. A written notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served to the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office unless there are special circumstances. If the person detained in a detention house, etc. is not present at that place, it may be served to such employee, other employed person, or a person living together

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap3215 Tax Claim Revocation, etc.

○ ○

Head of △ District Office

November 24, 2016

December 22, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

It is confirmed that each of the dispositions listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case") against the plaintiff is invalid when the defendant refers to each disposition.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 2005. 5. 7.부터 2014. 4. 8.까지 구치소에 수감되어 있었고, 원고의 가족들은 뿔뿔이 흩어져 주소지에는 아무도 거주하고 있지 않았다. 원고는 이 사건 각 처분의 납세고지서를 송달받은 적이 없고, 그 송달은 부적법한 것으로서 효력이 발생하지 않았으므로 무효이다(소멸시효가 완성되었다는 취지의 주장은 부과제척기간이 도과되어 더 이상 과세할 수 없다는 취지의 주장으로 보이므로, 이 사건 각 처분의 효력을 다투는 주장으로 보기는 어렵다).

2. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is invalid

A. Legal doctrine

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void. On the other hand, there are no special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act (Service on the detained person, etc.) and the provisions concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, a notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served as his/her domicile, residence, 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 the person who received the service at the detention house, etc. fails to be present at that place, it may be served as his/her employee and other employees or a person living together (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 8, 2005, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Seoul Southern Detention Center and was released on March 8, 2014 upon the expiration of the term of punishment.

2) The disposition No. 1 was notified as of October 1, 2005, and the notice of tax payment was served to Seoul ○○, a resident registration address of the Plaintiff at the time of the notification. At that time, the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son was living at the address

3) Each disposition Nos. 2 through 4 was notified as of September 11, 2006, and the notice of tax payment was served to Seoul ○○, a resident registration address at the time of the Plaintiff, around that time. At the time, the Plaintiff’s domicile was served to the ○○, Seoul ○, which was the resident registration address at the time of the Plaintiff’s notice of tax payment.

4) The disposition No. 5 was announced as of October 1, 2006, and the six dispositions as of October 2, 2006 respectively. Each tax notice was served as Seoul ○○, a resident registration address of the Plaintiff, around that time. At that time, the Plaintiff’s most BB was residing in the said domicile.

5) The disposition No. 7 was notified as of November 10, 2009. The notice of tax payment was served as Seoul △△△△, and the above letter number is the letter number of △△ detention center that the Plaintiff was confined at the time.

6) The disposition No. 8 was notified as of February 1, 2010, and the notice of tax payment was served at the time of the Plaintiff’s resident registration, Seoul, which was the resident registration address, and at the time, the Plaintiff’s most BB was residing in the address at that time.

7) The Plaintiff requested a full review of taxation on the disposition No. 5 of August 25, 2006; and

There is an objection against the disposition No. 47 of January 4, 2010.

C. Determination

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that each tax notice on each of the dispositions of this case was served lawfully, and otherwise, the Plaintiff did not assert or prove the grounds for invalidation of each of the dispositions of this case.

3. Conclusion

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