The case holding that service by public notice is unlawful solely on the ground that the representative director, on the corporate register of the company liable for tax payment, refuses to receive a tax payment notice at the separate office of the corporation.

The case holding that service by public notice is unlawful solely on the ground that the representative director, on the corporate register of the company liable for tax payment, refuses to receive a tax payment notice at the separate office of the corporation.

Articles 8 and 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na65314 delivered on October 2, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) On January 17, 190, the court below found the following facts: (1) The non-party 1's office or the non-party 1's office's domicile and the non-party 1's domicile and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's domicile and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's domicile and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 6's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 6's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 6's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the above documents were not received.

In light of relevant evidence and records, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for service by public notice, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the judgment of the court below.

The issue is that the court below's legitimate judgment is removed, and it cannot be accepted because it is merely because the office of the Oral E company was removed, without reasonable grounds, such as where the office of the Oral E company was the office of the non-party company, or where the director of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office served a tax payment notice on the address or place of business of the non-party 1.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.