A written notice of tax payment to persons confined in correctional institutions shall be served upon the domicile of such persons pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, except in extenuating circumstances.

In the absence of special circumstances, a notice of tax payment to a person who is confined in prison will be served at his/her domicile pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the notice of tax payment was served lawfully. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of 90 days from the plaintiff. Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed even

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

2015Guhap13215 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

The first disposition notice was received and the relationship with the Plaintiff was friendly, and the JJ was the first disposition notice.

20. ○. ○. ○. . The plaintiff's domicile received a notice of tax payment of the second disposition of this case by registered mail.

and the relationship with the plaintiff is a parent. If so, the situation in which the plaintiff is admitted to a prison.

In III, JJ is authorized by the Plaintiff to receive postal items explicitly or implicitly.

(1) each other’s tax payment notice may be deemed received.

C) Meanwhile, Article 10(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes must serve documents at the place to be served.

(1) If a person does not appear, a document shall be served to the person who is entitled to make a reasonable judgment as a person living together with him/her.

service may be made by means of a document, as alleged by the plaintiff, the JJ prescribed in the above provision.

There is no material to regard that it is not a "person who can distinguish the interest".

3. Conclusion

Since all of the lawsuits of this case are unlawful, it is decided as per Disposition by dismissal Aaa.

AA

○○ Head of tax office

December 22, 2016

January 19, 2017

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The imposition of ○○○○○ on 200. 200 on 200. 200 on 200 and 200 on 20. 20 and the imposition of ○○○○ on 20. 20. 20 on 20. 20 on 20. 30

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the founder of the school juristic person BB Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter referred to as “BB Private Teaching Institutes”), and the BB Private Teaching Institutes is operating the ○○○○○○-ri University on 190, with the authorization of establishment of the Ministry of Education on 00, 190.

B. In around 200. Around 200., Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development provided that the Plaintiff will contribute to ○○○ in relation to the use of the Plaintiff’s school expenses revealed in the process of audit of the CCC university. In order to implement the guidance examination, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development to make a contribution in kind to FF hotel (hereinafter “FF hotel”) owned by BBA, a limited company EE Tourism (hereinafter “EE mine”).

C. Since then, BBA received a donation of FF hotel from 000. 0. ○. EE Tourism, and incorporated FF hotel into profit-making property.

D. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax on EE tourism from 200. to 200.0.0.0, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff, the founder of the BB private teaching institute, bears the contribution of 00 won to be performed instead of EE Tourism; and (b) on the donation of FF hotel to BB private teaching institutes, the Defendant: (c) denied unfair act and calculation in accordance with Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act; (d) calculated the FF hotel’s gross income; and (d) disposed of the same amount as the Plaintiff’s other income; (d) on 200.0, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of ○○○○ in 2000 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”); and (e) subsequently, on 00.0, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the additional amount of 00 won for the reason of the arrears of 00 years of age in accordance with the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition 2”; and (e) disposed each of the instant dispositions 1 and 2”).

F. The Plaintiff visited the GG Tax Office on 200. 0. 200. 0. 200. ○○○○ and additional ○○○○ and the Plaintiff received a written notice of imposition of ○○○○ and additional ○○○ and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on 200. 0. 0. 200. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on 200. 0. 0. 200. 200. 3

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant sent a tax notice of each of the dispositions of this case to the plaintiff's domicile on 2000. ○ and 200. ○, and the plaintiff's liveers received each of the above tax notice, and lawfully served the plaintiff's liveers. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of 90 days from that date. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the period for filing the lawsuit of this case

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, “the date when the person becomes aware of the disposition,” and “the date when the person becomes aware of the fact of the disposition,” means the date when the person becomes aware of the fact by notification, public announcement, or other means. However, if the other party to the disposition or the person other than the person who is provided to receive the notification of the disposition pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes files an objection or a request for a review, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the notice of the disposition is received, and if the other party to the disposition is the other party to the disposition, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the notice of the disposition is received. On the other hand, there are no special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act and the provisions concerning the service of the Civil Procedure Act in the Framework Act on National Taxes which are applicable mutatis mutandis to the person in prison, and the service of the notice to the other party to the disposition shall not be made to the warden in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Framework Act.

In addition, according to Articles 56(2) and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against a disposition of national taxes may not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18(1) main sentence, (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known. Unlike the voluntary transfer principle of administrative appeals applicable to a general administrative litigation, an administrative litigation seeking a cancellation of a disposition of national taxes is subject to the requisite transfer principle that must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such a case, the request for examination or adjudgment must be lawful, and if it is unlawful due to an intention to file a request for examination or adjudgment, it

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances as to this case’s health team, the above facts and evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 9, and 10 together with the purport of the entire pleadings, the notice of tax payment on each of the dispositions of this case was lawfully served on the plaintiff’s cohabitant, and thus the period during which the plaintiff can file an appeal against it is calculated from 00.0.00 (Disposition No. 1 of this case) and 200.0.0 (Disposition No. 2 of this case). However, the plaintiff filed an appeal for revocation of each of the dispositions of this case with the Tax Tribunal on Oct. 0, 200 and 200.0.

A) The Plaintiff asserted that he was investigated by the public official in charge of HH tax affairs around 200.0.0., and thus, it could have anticipated that the Defendant would receive each of the instant dispositions from the Defendant, but the Defendant did not submit a “report on the change of service place” to the Defendant. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff was detained in prison from 200.0.0 to 200.0.0, the Plaintiff’s domicile at the time of service notice should be deemed as “○○○-ro, ○○-dong, ○○○○ (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s domicile”).”

B) Part III and JJ are family members of KK, who live together with the plaintiff, who are registered as residents at the plaintiff's domicile, and Part III, by registered mail at the plaintiff's domicile 200.0.0.0.