The validity of a tax payment notice served by publication

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted, since the defendant did not state the main contents of the notice to the public notice to the extent that it denies the validity of service by publication.

Article 10 [Method of Service of Documents) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Guhap67398

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

July 25, 2019

October 10, 2019

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of each global income tax (including additional tax) written by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is in Korea to BK in China from 2009 to 2013

In return for the supply of published daily newspapers, magazines, etc., c banks of the Plaintiff as described below:

Although U.S. dollars have been received through the account, the income tax was not returned.

B. Examination that the defendant paid to D the amount of foreign currency received by the plaintiff as revenue amount.

Purchase costs, air fares, local delivery charges, etc. in China shall be deducted from necessary expenses, and January 5, 2017 (attached Form)

(1) As indicated in the details of taxation, the global income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2009 through 2013 was determined as KRW 38,978,200, and then the tax payment notice was served to the Plaintiff on March 7, 2017 by public notice.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed an objection on June 14, 2017, and the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office.

On August 25, 2017, "total amount of tax determined by subtracting additional tax on the evidence of the local delivery fee of China corresponding to the above necessary expenses, and the remaining application is dismissed." Accordingly, the defendant corrected the global income tax (including additional tax) for the plaintiff from 2009 to 2013 as stated in the tax disposition [Attachment 2] by reducing the total amount of 35,042,226 won as stated in the tax disposition (hereinafter "the defendant's above part of the original disposition which was revoked by the above reduction correction" as stated in the above Paragraph (b).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 6, 2017.

B. The Tax Tribunal dismissed on March 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 5

Each entry, including lot number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The Defendant: (a) from March 7, 2017, on which the Plaintiff’s notice of tax payment became effective as service by public notice; (b)

Since an objection was filed on June 14, 2017, 90 days after the lapse of 90 days, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

(b) An objection shall be filed within 90 days after the disposition is known;

Articles 61(1) and 66(6) of the Act (amended by Act No. 1520, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) / [Article 61(1) and 66(6) of the Act] In a case where an objection against a disposition imposing national taxes, to which the necessary transfer principle applies, is unlawful due to the lapse of the period, administrative litigation is also illegal because it fails to meet the requirements for transfer, and it is unlawful for the head of the competent regional tax office to make a decision on the merits

On the other hand, Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall serve documents such as notice of tax payment by mail.

section 11(1) provides that registered mail shall be registered, and the service by public notice may be made.

(1) if there is an address or a place of business overseas and such service is difficult (paragraph (1)), or

The term “case prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under Articles 10(4) and 10(4) refer to the case where the service of a document by registered mail is not made at a place where the person is not at the place where the document is to be served (Article 2(2) and 10(4) and the case where the recipient’s absence is returned due to the absence of the recipient, etc. (Article 7-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to the case where it is difficult to serve the document within the payment period because the document was served by registered mail but it was returned due to the absence of the recipient (Article 7-2(3) of the same Act).

C. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Eul's above 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20: ① the plaintiff made a move-in report to x in Mapo-gu Seoul on July 3, 2014; ② the plaintiff directly received a notice of tax notice stating the amount of income, tax base and tax amount, change in income amount, and amount of tax withheld on November 30, 2016 (Evidence 16); ③ the defendant requested the defendant to pre-assessment on July 17, 207; ③ the defendant sent a notice of tax payment on the same date to the plaintiff on January 30, 2017; ② the defendant sent a notice of tax payment on the first 20 years of residence on the plaintiff's resident registration number on January 16, 2017; ④ the defendant sent a notice of tax payment on the second 17th 7th 10th 2017.

D. As to this, the Plaintiff’s taxable object and its tax base amount and application in the public notice above

The basis for calculation of the tax amount, the amount of penalty tax by type and the basis for calculation, etc. are not indicated.

It argues that service does not take effect because it is illegal.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, i.e., the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

Article 11 (1) where a person to receive documents falls under the requirements for service by public notice, documents shall be served.

The main contents of the notice shall be deemed to have been served in accordance with Article 8 14 days after the date of the public notice, and the document shall be deemed to have been served in full instead of the entire contents of the document. In the case of service by public notice, it would be sufficient for the person to receive the document to publicly notify the contents of the document to the extent that he/she can request perusal and delivery of the document by specifying the relevant document in the tax office in which the person to receive the document has made the public notice. ② Since the above public notice contains the name of the tax item, tax amount, due date, and document to be served, which can be deemed to be the most important among the contents of the tax notice, the plaintiff's request for perusal and delivery of the tax notice on the initial disposition against the defendant is deemed not to have any particular impediment to the plaintiff's request for public notice. ③ Furthermore, the plaintiff's request for prior notice was made on November 2, 2016 by visiting the Mapo Tax Office, the calculation basis of the tax base and tax amount, and the basis for calculation of penalty tax amount, etc.

E. Therefore, the effect of service by public notice on the above notice of tax payment came into force on March 7, 2017, and the Plaintiff.

Since June 14, 2017, which was 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the above, the above objection shall be

lawful (the validity of service by public notice on the plaintiff's objection and on the tax judgment notice).

The fact that the lawsuit in this case occurred on March 21, 2017 seems to be unlawful without due process of a prior trial, by making an error in the notification date of the list of service by public notice to the staff of Mapo Tax Office as of February 20, 2017, rather than " March 7, 2017," and thereby making a wrong examination table as to the legitimacy of delivery of written opinions and written notification).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.