"An address or place of business is not known" means a case in which the address, etc. cannot be known despite due care of a good manager.

It is difficult for the tax authorities to regard that the tax authorities to have fulfilled their due care as a good manager when they visited the above spouse's domicile only once and serve the tax payment notice after having visited the above spouse's address for less than one time.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Guhap23385 global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

The AA

The director of the tax office of Luxembourg

April 19, 2018

June 21, 2018

1. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,647,919,770, and penalty tax of KRW 590,604,725 against the Plaintiff was null and void.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff established and operated ○ Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○ Steel”) on June 1993 and discontinued on March 31, 2009.

나. 원고는 2008. 12. 24.경부터 2009. 1. 8.경까지 ○○철강의 자금 38,339,150,240원을 이익배당금 및 대표이사 가수금 변제 명목 등으로 사외유출하여 횡령하였다는 혐의로 2012. 6. 27. 징역 3년, 집행유예 5년의 형을 선고받아 위 판결은 2012. 7. 5. 확정되었다(■■지방법원 ■■■■고합■■, □□고등법원 □□□□노□□).

C. From April 4, 2013 to July 2, 2013, the Director of the △△△ Regional Tax Office conducted a corporate tax integration investigation with respect to ○○ Steel, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 38,339,150,240 (35,108,400,000 for 2008, and KRW 3,230,750,240 for 209) of the embezzlement amount pursuant to the proviso of Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as a bonus for the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the notice of change of income amount for 2009”) to the effect that the Plaintiff disposes of the amount of income as a bonus for the taxation data (hereinafter referred to as “the notice of change of income amount for 2009”) to the address at the place of residence of the Plaintiff, a representative at the competent tax office having been aware of the Plaintiff’s domicile.

D. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax of KRW 1,647,919,770, and penalty tax of KRW 590,604,725 (i.e., penalty tax of KRW 423,126,021 + penalty tax of KRW 167,478,704 + penalty tax of KRW 2,238,524,495 (= KRW 1,647,919,70 + + KRW 590,604,725) on the Plaintiff on May 14, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), without notifying the Plaintiff of the imposition of national tax for the reason that the exclusion period of imposition of national tax has expired, the Defendant intended to deliver the instant disposition without notifying the Plaintiff of the imposition of national tax on the ground that the instant disposition constitutes a case where the address or the place of business is unclear on May 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As the ○○ Steel closed on March 11, 2009, the notice of change in the amount of income in 2009 should be served pursuant to the proviso of Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. On the contrary, the notice of change in the amount of income was served as the Plaintiff’s domicile, residence, place of business, or office, which is not the Plaintiff’s domicile, place of business, place of business, or office. Accordingly, the notice of change in the amount of income was served as the

2) The Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to apply for pre-assessment review by failing to give notice of taxation. The instant disposition is null and void due to serious procedural defects.

3) The Defendant served the Plaintiff with the instant disposition by public notice, and the Defendant served the Plaintiff with due care as a good manager, despite having been aware of the Plaintiff’s address of service by public notice. As such, the instant disposition is invalid due to the defect in the service of tax payment notice.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Considering the purport of the service by public notice under Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the fact that the provision of service by public notice may excessively infringe on the right to a trial under Article 27(1) of the Constitution by public notice where a tax authority is not clear, “where a person’s address or place of business is unclear as the grounds for service by public notice” refers to where the tax authority investigates the person’s address or place of business, which shall be served with due care, but the address or place of business cannot be identified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du18701, May 11, 1999; 9Nu4134, Oct. 14, 1994; 96Nu36529, Jun. 28, 1996; 205Nu935989, Jun. 29, 1995).” Meanwhile, the tax authority bears the burden of proving whether service by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice is legitimate (see, etc.

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 15 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that service by public notice on the instant tax payment notice was unlawful on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11(1)2 of the Framework

① On February 2, 2014 through July 2007, the Defendant served the notice of notice of taxation, notice of demand, and notice of local income tax on global income tax on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s domicile, not on the Plaintiff’s resident registration, as knum knum knum knumnaum, knum knumnaum, knum knumnaum knum

② The mere fact that the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s actual place of residence in order to serve the instant tax payment notice, but the Plaintiff’s spouse was absent and the Plaintiff was not aware of his residence cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was found to have left the said place of residence for a long time beyond the temporary absence of the Plaintiff.

③ According to Article 17(5) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Collection Affairs, where a recipient temporarily does not exist, delivery shall be made by posting the “inbound notice of arrival” Stick at the place of service and by posting it at the place of service. In addition to evidentiary documents, the original copy of the Stick is to be compared for subsequent civil petition filing and appeal. However, the defendant immediately served by posting the “inbound notice of arrival” Stick at the above place of residence without having attempted to reissue it by attaching the “inbound notice of arrival.”

④ Although the Defendant had already known the real place of residence, visited only once to hear the answer of the family helper and served the instant tax payment notice by public notice. It is difficult to deem that the tax authority’s investigation of the address, etc. of the person to be served with due care as a good manager was conducted, but the address, etc. is unknown.

3) As long as the service by public notice on the instant disposition is not effective due to its illegality, the instant disposition is null and void (as long as the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is recognized, no further determination is made as to the remainder of the assertion).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.