Cho Jae-2017-1258 (Law No. 12, 2017)

Since a tax notice has been filed with the 90th day from the date of lawful delivery as a service by public notice, it is illegal to go through the preceding trial procedure.

In full view of the process of service by public notice of the instant tax notice, the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the details of the Plaintiff’s assertion, etc., the service of the Plaintiff’s tax notice is lawful service by public notice pursuant to Article 11(1)2 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and a petition for trial filed within 90 days from the date of service is unlawful

Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Guhap56797 Global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

November 3, 2017

November 17, 2017

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 taxx (00 won of additional tax) on the Plaintiff on July 25, 2012 by the Defendant on July 2012, 209 and the imposition of the global income taxx (00 won of additional tax) on the global income tax for the year 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff is registered as the representative director of theCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) that carries on the business of importing and selling automobiles from December 7, 2009.

나. DD세무서장은 2011년 9월경 이 사건 회사의 부가가치세 세금계산서 불부합 자료에 따라 2009년 2기 부가가치세 xx원, 2010년 1기 부가가치세 xx원, 2010년 2기 부가가치세 xx원을 증액하고, 매출누락으로 익금산입하여 2009 사업연도 법인세 xxx원, 2010 사업연도 법인세(결손이므로 세액은 0원이나 과세표준을 -xxx에서 -xxx원으로 경정함)를 증액하며, 익금산입한 금액을 원고에 대한 상여로 보아 소득금액변동통지를 하는 결의하였다. 서초세무서장은 위 법인세와 관련된 납세고지서를 등기우편으로 원고의 주소지[00 00구 000로 000, 000동 000호(ㅇㅇ동,ㅇㅇㅇ), 이하 '이 사건 주소지'라 한다]에 송달을 시도하였으나 2회 반송되고 직원으로 하여금 이 사건 주소지에 방문하도록 하였으나 수취인 부재로 송달을 할 수 없게 되자 2011년 11월경 공시송달하였다. DD세무서장은 그 무렵 피고에게 원고에 대한 소득금액 변동내역 과세자료를 통보하였다.

C. The Defendant, around April 2012, attempted to serve a notice of global income tax assessment for the year 2009 and 2010 at the instant domicile, but was returned, and attempted to serve a notice on May 9, 2012, but was confirmed as the other person was dead at the instant domicile, service by public notice was served.

D. On June 5, 2012, the Defendant, on the Plaintiff’s June 5, 2012, corrected the Plaintiff’s global income taxxx and the global income taxxx for the year 2009. On June 12, 2012, the Defendant attempted to serve a tax payment notice related to the global income tax (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”) by registered mail at the instant domicile, but on June 18, 2012, the Defendant changed the payment deadline (from June 30, 2012 to July 25, 2012) and served on June 27, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The certified copy and abstract of the Plaintiff’s resident registration indicated that the Plaintiff transferred on June 28, 2010 to the domicile of the instant case, but became ex officio residence on July 25, 2012. The address of the Plaintiff’s family members is a move-in report at a place other than the Plaintiff’s domicile.

F. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 12, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for inquiry was unlawful on the ground that 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of disposition was 90 days.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 8 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

B. Determination

In full view of the aforementioned taxation notice’s process of service by public notice, Plaintiff’s domicile, and Plaintiff’s partial proposal (the flight was made until the arrest on March 20, 2013 in order not to be disadvantaged due to malicious planning and investigation by customs office and prosecutor’s office at the time of the instant disposition), service by public notice on the Plaintiff constitutes “where the address or place of business is unclear” or “where it is deemed difficult to serve by public notice on the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s absence of the recipient,” and thus, constitutes lawful service by public notice under Article 11(1)2 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. This case’s tax notice appears to have been duly served on the Plaintiff on July 12, 2012, when 14 days have elapsed from the date of service by public notice by public notice.

Administrative litigation on national taxes may be filed through a request for examination by the National Tax Service, a tax Tribunal, or a request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, a request for adjudgment on national taxes is filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant disposition is notified (Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The Plaintiff’s request for adjudgment is unlawful as it was filed on March 6, 2017, past 90 days from the time when the Plaintiff was notified of the disposition by lawful service. As such, an unlawful request for adjudgment cannot be deemed a lawful preceding trial procedure

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.