Busan District Court 2009Guhap2925 (2010.08)

It is difficult to see that defects in the electronic notice of imposition are serious and apparent.

Where it is confirmed that the user and the user of the authorized certificate are the same person through the system of registration of authorized certificates, if the user and the user of the authorized certificate accepted the application for electronic notification only with the user ID and password, it is difficult to deem that there is a significant and apparent defect that the

2010Nu3565 Value-Added Tax and Global Income Tax, and Nullity and Invalidity thereof

XX

O Head of the tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2009Guhap2925 Decided July 8, 2010

December 3, 2010

December 17, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Pursuant to the claim and the purport of appeal

On July 4, 2008, the decision of the first instance is revoked. On the plaintiff, the imposition of the global income tax of 15.103.620 won for the year 2006 by the head of the Busan Busan District Tax Office and the imposition of the tax of 18,888,360 won for the first period of July 9, 2008 and 172,250,710 won for the second period of value-added tax for the year 2006 by the head of the North Busan District Tax Office is confirmed to be null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 2, 8, Gap evidence 14-1 through 4, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 16-1 through 5, Eul evidence 3 and 5.

A. The Plaintiff purchased waste wires with the trade name of P1 Dong 4164, Busan, P1 Dong 4164, and engages in exporting them to China.

나. 피고 부산진세무서장은 2008. 3경 원고에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 결과 2006년 2기에 원고의 동생인 조AA이 발행하여 원고에게 교부한 세금계산서 11장 공급가액 합계 739,841,000원과 원고의 사돈인 권BB이 발행하여 원고에게 교부한 2006년 1기 세금계산서 2장 공급가액 합계 133,704,000원, 2006년 2기 세금계산서 10장 공급가액 합계 651,960,000원이 실물거래 없는 가공세금계산서라고 보고, 실제 매입가액과 세금 계산서 수취액과의 차액 45,019,000원에서 매출원가를 차감하여 2008. 7. 4. 원고에게 2006년도 귀속 종합소득세로 15,103,620원을 부과하는 처분(이하 '이 사건 종합소득세 부과처분'이라 한다)을 하면서 그 처분서를 홈택스서비스 전자고지시스템에 저장하고 2008. 7. 4. 14:28:40 원고의 E-mail 주소인 XXkr@hanmail.net로, 같은 날 14:30:12 원고의 휴대전화번호인 017-XXX-XXXX에 문자서비스로 전자고지한 사실을 알렸다.

C. Based on the data notified by the head of the Busan District Tax Office as the defendant's notification, the head of the defendant North Busan District Tax Office imposed the tax amount of KRW 13,370,40 on July 9, 2006 and KRW 139,180.100 on July 2006 as the value-added tax of KRW 18,88,360 on July 9, 2008, and KRW 172,250,710 as the value-added tax for the second half of 2006 and stored the notice in the home home home home home home home home home home service electronic system and stored it on July 9, 2008:32:47 of the plaintiff's E-mail address on July 14, 2008; and the plaintiff's mobile phone service on the same day:327 of the same day; each of the above dispositions was taken by adding the two dispositions (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition").

라. 원고는 2008. 6. 25. 금융결제원으로부터 발급받은 유효기간 2008. 1. 30.부터 2009. 2. 2.까지인 공인인증서(인증서번호 XXXXXXXXX)를 홈택스서비스에 등록하고, 이를 이용하여 홈택스서비스 전자고지시스템에 접속하여 이 사건 종합소득세 부과처분을 2008. 7. 6. 23:26:33에, 이 사건 부가가치세 부과처분을 2008. 7. 11. 10:51:16에 각 열람하였다.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 10, 2008. On June 25, 2009, the Tax Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date when the Plaintiff’s request for each of the instant dispositions was notified by electronic delivery.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

According to Article 18 of the Electronic Government Act, Article 110(8) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 6-2 and 6-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in a case where the tax authority does not directly visit the tax office to deliver a tax notice to taxpayers, and does not prepare and submit an application for the use of the home home-based website, the tax office’s access to the National Tax Service Home home-based website with an authorized certificate and then applies for the electronic service by means of a certified digital signature. However, in the National Tax Service Home-based website, it is possible to apply for the electronic notice by selecting the electronic notice on the screen of the member information after entering the personal ID and password, the electronic signature prescribed in the Electronic Government Act does not take the method of digital signature. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case where the Plaintiff made the electronic notice to the Plaintiff without an application for electronic service application by means of a certified digital signature.

(2) The Defendants

The plaintiff applied for electronic delivery method by accessing his authorized certificate on March 9, 2007 to the National Tax Service Home System website by using his authorized certificate. Thus, the plaintiff's application for electronic delivery is lawful and it cannot be said that there are any defects in the electronic notice that is achieved accordingly. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

을제1 내지 6호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 국세청 전산정보실에 대한 각 사실조회 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 홈택스서비스는 사용자가 ID와 비밀번호로 접속한 상태에서 전자고지 신청을 하려면 공인인증서로 다시 접속하여야 하나, 홈택스서비스를 신청하거나 홈택스 이용 중에 미리 공인인증서를 등록해 둔 경우에는 공인인증서로 접속하지 않고 사용자ID와 비밀번호만으로 접속한 상태에서 "회원정보"란에 있는 "전자고지 이용여부"란을 체크하는 방법으로 전자고지를 신청할 수 있도록 되어 있는 사실, 원고는 2003. 1. 22. 부산진세무서에 E-mail 주소(XXkr@korea.com, 뒤에 XXkr@hanrnail.net.로 변경하였다)와 휴대전화번호(017-XXX-XXXX)를 기재한 인터넷국세서비스 신규이용신청서를 제출하고 홈택스서비스를 이용하였으나 전자고지 제도를 이용하지 않은 사실, 원고는 2007. 2. 27. 부산은행에서 유효기간이 2007. 2. 27.부터 2008. 2. 1.까지인 공인인증서(인증서번호 XXXXXXXX)를 발급받아 2007. 2. 27. 홈택스 서비스에 접속하여 위 공인인증서 등록을 한 사실, 홈택스서비스 접속기록에 의하면 원고가 2007. 3. 9. 16:05:15에 흠택스서비스에 사용자ID와 비밀번호로 로그인한 다음 다시 공인인증서로 본인확인절차를 거쳐 로그인을 한 사실이었으나 로그아웃을 누르지 않고 접속을 종료함으로써 로그아웃 시간을 알 수 없는 사실, 한편 홈택스서비스는 사용자ID와 비밀번호로 접속한 다음 다시 공인인증서로 본인확인절차를 거쳐 접속한 경우에 공인인증서로 접속한 사실만 나타날 뿐 공인인증서로 접속한 시간은 표시되지 않는 사실, 원고는 위와 같이 2007. 3. 9. 16:05:15에 홈택스서비스에 사용자ID와 비밀 번호로 접속한 다음 16:07:39에 "회원정보"란에 있는 "전자고지 이용여부"란을 표시하는 방법으로 전자고지를 신청한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(2) Under Articles 8(1), 10(1), and 12(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, documents under the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts can be served by electronic delivery to the electronic mail address of the title holder (where stored in the national tax information and communications network, at the place accessible by using the user identification mark of the title holder). In the case of electronic delivery, it shall be deemed that the electronic mail address designated by the person to receive the delivery reaches the person to receive the delivery. Under Article 6-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the person who intends to apply for electronic delivery shall submit the taxpayer’s name, resident registration number, and other personal information, electronic delivery related information, and the electronic mail address or contact number for receipt of information related to electronic delivery to the head of the competent tax office. According to Article 3-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 6-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the taxpayer’s personal identification and personal identification number should be applied through Article 16(1).

(3) According to the above facts, from January 22, 2003, the Plaintiff applied for an electronic notification in March 9, 2007, when the Plaintiff registered a certified certificate issued by the Busan Bank using the user ID and password with the home office service, using the home office service. On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for an electronic notification in March 16, 207:07:39. Each of the instant dispositions was connected to the home office service through the authorized certificate immediately after the electronic notice was issued, and then perused each of the instant dispositions.

As asserted by the Plaintiff, Article 6(1) and (2) of the Regulations on the Use of Home Call Services provides that in order to apply for an electronic notification in the use of Home Call Services, the user ID and password should be added to the identification procedure, and the identification procedure should be followed again by an authorized certificate.

Nevertheless, in the event that the National Tax Service provides home-based service without going through the above identification procedure, and the user and the user of the authorized certificate are confirmed to be the same person through the system of the registration of authorized certificates, the user and password alone made it possible to accept the Plaintiff’s application for electronic notification, and the Defendants issued electronic notification upon the Plaintiff’s application for electronic notification following the procedure of identification.

However, in light of the fact that the Electronic Government Act, including the Ordinance, does not limit only the method by which the applicant has a certified electronic signature to verify the identity of the applicant for an electronic document with respect to the matters for which the application or report is required by the relevant laws and regulations, including the Ordinance, and that the provision requiring the procedure for identification by an authorized certificate is meaningful to verify the identity of the applicant, but only through the above procedure can sufficiently verify the identity of the person himself/herself, it is difficult to deem that the disposition in this case has a significant and apparent defect solely on the ground that it violated the procedure prescribed by the provisions on the use of Home Service

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the plaintiff's application for electronic notification is invalid is without merit.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, 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.