Tax Tribunal 2012u3661

In the case of a lawsuit which has not gone through the procedure of the preceding trial, it shall be dismissed.

The defendant served by public notice by legitimate means. In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit without going through the prior trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, which constitutes the object of rejection.

2013Gudan133 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KoreaA

Director of the District Office

September 12, 2013

September 26, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax of 2003 on September 4, 2003 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

On August 14, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired OO-dong 337 OB apartment 206, 607 O-dong 337 OB apartment 207 OB apartment 207. On July 10, 2009, after transfer of ownership in the name of CC due to a compulsory auction on July 10, 2009, the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of imposition of OOOO2 for the transfer income tax for the year 2009 from the Defendant on March 2, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) was either disputed between the parties or recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 2.

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. According to Articles 55(1) and (3), 61, and 66(6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a disposition imposing capital gains tax shall be filed through a prior trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes; a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition is known; when an objection is filed prior to a request for examination or adjudgment, the objection shall have been filed within 90 days from the date on which the decision on the objection is known; and a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the decision on the objection is notified; and the institution of administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified. However, where an objection, request for examination or adjudgment which is a prior trial procedure is illegal due to the lapse

Meanwhile, according to Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax payment notice shall be served on the domicile, etc. of the holder of the title deed, and a service by delivery, mail, or electronic delivery shall be served on the holder of the title deed. In the case of a service by mail, if a person to receive the service by mail is not present at the place to receive the service by mail, the service by mail may be made to such employee, other employee, or a person living together with a mental capacity to make reasonable judgment; and in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as where a document is served by registered mail but is returned to the addressee because the document was sent by registered mail, and it is difficult for the recipient to serve the document by a due date because the document was returned to the addressee's absence, and where a tax official visited the taxpayer two or more times to deliver the document, but it is difficult to serve the document by the due date due to the absence of the recipient, respectively.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entries and arguments as to Gap evidence, the defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to the plaintiff's domicile by registered mail on March 2, 201, but returned due to the absence of closure twice. The defendant's public official in charge was unable to deliver the notice after visiting the plaintiff's domicile on May 6, 201 and May 9, 201, and the service was made on May 19, 201 by notice for tax payment on May 19, 201, and the service became effective as of June 2, 201. After the plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on July 11, 2012, and subsequently rejected the decision to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the tax payment notice was not made by the Tax Tribunal on November 20, 2012.

Thus, the defendant's tax notice service constitutes a service meeting the requirements of service by public notice, and as long as the plaintiff's objection and appeal are unlawful with the lapse of the period of appeal, the lawsuit in this case is also unlawful as it does not go through legitimate procedure

3. Conclusion

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.