Whether the notice served on the apartment security guards is lawful;

The mail served on the apartment security guards by registration shall be served lawfully, and the petition for a trial shall be filed with the 90 days from the date the apartment security guards become aware of the disposition, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap3474 Additional global income and revocation of disposition thereof

Park AA

Head of Nowon Tax Office

October 11, 2013

November 15, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the global income tax OOO(including the additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on April 10, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the global income tax OOO(including additional tax) in 2004 to the Plaintiff on the ground that “from January 2004 to December 2004, the Plaintiff received the interest of the OOOO(s) from the BB during the period from January 2004.”

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on May 27, 2013, but on September 3, 2013, by the Tax Tribunal.

The dismissal decision was rejected.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap evidence 2 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff failed to receive a tax notice and did not acquire interest income, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

As the Plaintiff received a tax payment notice on April 21, 2010 and did not undergo a request for examination or adjudgment, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Any administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be filed without a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon." Thus, unlike the discretionary transfer principle of administrative appeals applicable to general administrative litigation, any administrative litigation seeking a revocation of a disposition of national tax shall be subject to the requisite transfer principle which must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such case, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful. Thus, if a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, such administrative litigation shall not be deemed to have undergone a necessary transfer procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 191). Meanwhile, according to Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (the date on which a notice of disposition is received) on which

In addition, if special mail, such as ordinary mail or registered mail, is delivered on an apartment in which a taxpayer is residing, the apartment security guard has received and delivered it to the resident, and if there is no objection against the method of delivery for such special mail, it is reasonable to deem that the residents of apartment buildings residing by the taxpayer, including the taxpayer, have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail, etc. to the apartment security guard. Thus, the apartment security guard’s receipt of the notice of tax payment from the mail carrier constitutes the date when the apartment security guard receives the notice of disposition under Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 200).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including paper numbers), ParkCC, the security guard of the plaintiff's apartment housing, was served with a notice of global income tax on April 21, 2010, and the ordinary apartment security guard received mail and served contact with the plaintiff later, and later served with the plaintiff. The defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of global income tax on January 31, 201 (this Court Decision 201Guhap38698) against the plaintiff on January 31, 2012, stating that "the disposition of global income tax on 2004 was imposed on the plaintiff's global income tax on the plaintiff," and the facts stated in the court are acknowledged. The plaintiff filed a petition for a judgment with the Tax Tribunal on May 27, 2013 during the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, since a tax notice was served lawfully, and a petition for adjudication was filed 90 days from the date on which the disposition became known, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.