Whether the service of a notice is lawful and is subject to the invalidation of the service;

Since it is confirmed that the plaintiff's wife received a written notice at his domicile, a tax notice has been lawfully served, and the grounds for calculating capital gains tax can be accurately examined and clarified, and it is difficult to see that the defect is apparent in appearance.

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Gudan4967 ( October 10, 2007)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant confirms that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 52,987,230 on the plaintiff on 2004 is null and void.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred 204.16 square meters in ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong 204.16 square meters in the same ○○-dong ○○-dong 204, 97.42 square meters in the same ○○-dong

B. The Defendant issued the initial taxation disposition that imposed capital gains tax on the transfer of each of the instant real estate at KRW 56,235,976 on 01.05.01.00. However, on 12,68,141 on 14.05.24.08, the Defendant issued the disposition of reduction or correction to KRW 3,322,52 on 3,322,52 on 15.06.02.06.02, the Defendant issued the disposition of reduction or correction to impose additional KRW 49,664,70 on 49,64,708 on 15.06.06.02 (Therefore, the subject of the instant lawsuit was finally reduced from KRW 3,322,522 on 3,322,522 on 15.06.09,64,708 on 49,2006.12.25,298,2006.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on the grounds of insufficient calculation of acquisition value and omission in necessary expenses, etc. However, the Plaintiff received a decision of rejection from the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on the grounds that the objection was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of disposition.

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on February 2, 2006, but also received a decision of rejection from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 22, 2007 on the ground of the lapse of the appeal period.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9,10, Eul evidence Nos. 2,6-9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is void as a matter of course for the following reasons.

① The notice received from the Defendant was omitted from the basis of calculation of the tax amount, and the notice of tax payment regarding the instant disposition was not received.

(2) The Defendant calculated the acquisition value remarkably less, and did not appropriately include necessary expenses recognized by the Act.

B. Determination

(1) As to the assertion on invalidation due to procedural defects

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 and 10, the defendant reduced the transfer income tax amount of 3,322,52 won on two occasions from the date of the initial taxation disposition on April 01, 2005 to the date of May 15, 2006, but around November 30, 2005, notified the prior notice of taxation to the effect that the acquired area would be corrected as the reserved area for replotting and that the amount of the land excess profit tax would be corrected by the method of deduction of necessary expenses, not the tax credit, and that the former ○○, the plaintiff's wife, can be recognized that he received the tax notice on the disposition of this case stating the amount of tax at the plaintiff's domicile on November 11, 2006. Thus, the plaintiff's tax notice of this case was legally served. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

② As to the assertion of invalidation due to substantive defects

Generally, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any factual relation such as the legal relation or income or act, which is subject to taxation, is significant and apparent, but in a case where there are objective circumstances to mislead him as to any legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation, the determination of whether it is subject to taxation should be made accurately cannot be made clear even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Oct. 4, 2002). However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the defect is apparent because it constitutes a situation that can be clarified by accurately examining the factual relation, such as whether there is any error in calculating the acquisition value or necessary expenses, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer income tax,

D. Conclusion

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