It is reasonable to deem that service by public notice by the Defendant is effective in all of the requirements for service by public notice.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the above evidence, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff left the existing place of service for a long time and obstructed the Defendant’s exercise of the right to impose taxes. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant service by public notice satisfies all the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11(1)3

Article 11 (Service by Public Notice)

2015Guhap3799

Co., Ltd. 000

000 director of the tax office

208.28

oly 2015.18

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of interest income tax (original tax) for the Plaintiff on April 1, 2013, the amount of KRW 49,376,070 for the year 209, the amount of KRW 107,048,667 for the year 2010, and the amount of KRW 72,052,953 for the year 2009 and additional tax for the failure to submit a payment record (corporate tax) for the year 2009 shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the purpose of which is to engage in credit business, transferred KRW 493,760,742 from July 27, 2009 to December 24, 2009, KRW 1,070,486,660 from January 25, 201 to December 24, 2010, and KRW 720,529,531 from January 26, 201 to September 27, 2011 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

B. The defendant is the name of interest payment for the money borrowed from the lender located in Japan by the plaintiff.

On April 1, 2013, on the ground of the remittance of the instant money, KRW 228,477,690 (original tax) (i.e., KRW 49,376,070 in 209 + KRW 107,048,667 in 2010 + KRW 72,052,952,953 in 201) and penalty tax not submitted for payment record on the said interest payment ( corporate tax) (i.e., KRW 9,875,210 in 209 + KRW 21,409,730 in 201 + KRW 14,410,590 in 201).

C. On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the said objection on July 25, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant objection decision”).

D. The defendant tried to serve the plaintiff with the written decision of this case, however, about four times.

On November 5, 2013, the service by public notice was made on November 5, 2013 (hereinafter "the service by public notice") and on November 19, 2013, the above service by public notice became effective.

E. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on December 16, 2014, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an appeal for adjudication with the lapse of the period of appeal.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff merely transferred the instant money under the pretext of repaying the principal borrowed from a lender located in Japan, but did not transfer it under the pretext of payment of interest, and thus, the instant disposition that had different premise is unlawful.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

A request for a trial filed by the Plaintiff to the Tax Tribunal is unlawful due to the lapse of the period, and thus, this request

The lawsuit is also unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of the transfer.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Articles 55(1) and (3), 61, and 66(6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, corporate tax shall be imposed.

"A lawsuit seeking a cancellation of disposition shall be filed through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes, which shall be filed within 90 days after the date on which a disposition is known; and when such request for examination or adjudgment has been filed prior to such request for examination or adjudgment, the request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after a decision on the request for examination or adjudgment has been notified; and an administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days after the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment has been notified. However, if an objection, request for examination or adjudgment which is the procedure for the previous trial is inappropriate due to the lapse of the period, administrative litigation also becomes inappropriate due to failure to satisfy the requirements of the preceding trial; and Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that: (1) where an address or business office is located overseas and it is difficult to serve documents by public notice (Article 11(2)2); (3) where a tax official fails to serve documents under Article 10(4) and (3)4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree Decree Decree Decree No. 16.

In order to determine whether or not the plaintiff filed a request for trial by public notice of this case more than 90 days from the date of receipt of the written decision of this case, it is necessary to examine whether or not the plaintiff's service by public notice of this case was conducted effectively. In light of the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of this case on May 13, 2013 and delegated his authority to Kim 00 during the period from 207 to 209. On July 31, 2013, the Director of the Regional Tax Office sent the written decision of this case to the address of the plaintiff's principal office (hereinafter "place of business") on August 5, 2013. 1 to 30 days without the plaintiff's request for a return of the written decision of this case to the defendant's 1, 2013. The defendant did not receive the written decision of this case on August 14, 2013.

3) Sub-determination

On November 5, 2013, the Defendant’s objection of this case served by public notice on November 19, 2013 and served on November 19, 2013. The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on September 18, 2014, which is apparent that 90 days have passed since the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on September 18, 2014. The Plaintiff’s request for a trial is unlawful after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and the lawsuit of this case

4. Conclusion

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