Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan57709 ( October 22, 2015)

Effect of the details of service recorded in the electronic data of the National Tax Service;

Unless there are special circumstances, the details of service of computerized data by the National Tax Service shall be deemed to coincide with data on the current status of service by registered post offices.

2015Nu36197 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

Head of △ District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan57709 decided December 22, 2015

November 04, 2015

November 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. In the first instance court, the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on March 3, 2010 against the Plaintiff on March 3, 2007 shall be revoked. In the first instance, it is confirmed that the said disposition is null and void.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

○ The 4th page of the 2nd page "Sy interest place" shall be considered as "Sy interest place".

○ 3 pages 12 of the 3rd page "Evidence 2 through 4 of this paragraph" shall be "Evidence 2, 4, 6-1, 6-2 of this paragraph".

○ 4. 3 to 5. The following are high.

(2) On March 4, 2010, the notice of tax payment of this case was issued to the post office "Plaintiff" and "Seoul, 00-00/00,000, which is the plaintiff's domicile, and received and sent with the registration number "1,000,0005," and on March 8, 2010, the details delivered by the recipient to the plaintiff's spouse as the plaintiff's spouse are confirmed by the National Tax Service's electronic data (the plaintiff's name is stated in "the recipient's and the recipient's name is stated in "the plaintiff's spouse" but it is clear that the plaintiff's spouse is the plaintiff's spouse, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's spouse received a tax payment notice at 000 degrees of 00 on March 4, 2010. The plaintiff's address at the post office "the recipient's domicile" and the plaintiff's domicile at the same time as the plaintiff's domicile and received the above tax payment notice from 000 to 3000.00.400.0.00.0.00.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The presiding judge shall be a judge.

Judges Kim Jong-hwan

Judgment of the Supreme Court