In the absence of special circumstances, where a postal item is sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time, except in the absence of special circumstances.

In the absence of special circumstances, where a postal item is sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time, except in the absence of special circumstances.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Gudan22936 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

@@세무서장

on October 10, 2017

on October 31, 2017

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning a request for revocation of the imposition of surcharge of KRW 5,223,120 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 13, 2007, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 6,964,310 and additional dues of KRW 5,223,120 against the Plaintiff on November 13, 2006 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 22, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired OOOO-dong 301 (hereinafter “instant house”) on December 22, 2005, but transferred it on December 27, 2006, but did not report and pay the transfer income tax.

B. Around November 2007, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 6,964,310 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in the instant lawsuit is legitimate

In the instant lawsuit ex officio, the part concerning the claim to revoke the imposition of additional dues is deemed lawful. The additional dues and aggravated additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) are a kind of incidental tax imposed as a interest for arrears if national taxes are not paid by the payment deadline, and if national taxes are not paid by the payment deadline, they are naturally generated pursuant to the above provision of the Act and the amount thereof is determined if national taxes are not paid by the payment deadline without the final procedure of the person who has the authority to impose tax, and it is possible to start the collection procedure. Thus, if the payment demand is unfair or procedural, the action to revoke the payment demand is possible by the demand notice, but the tax authority did not perform any act to determine additional dues and aggravated additional dues, and there is no demand for the payment after the payment deadline. Thus, the action to revoke such imposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues is unlawful.

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant commenced the collection procedure by demanding the payment of the additional dues or made a certain disposition to confirm it, and thus, the part of the claim for revocation of the additional dues seeking the revocation is unlawful on the premise of the imposition of the increased additional dues of KRW 5,223,120.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was unable to receive a tax payment notice following the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is invalid due to the defect in the service of the tax payment notice.

B. Determination

Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Nov. 1, 2010) provides that the documents under the tax law shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business, or office of the title holder. Here, the address refers, in principle, to the temporary domicile under Article 21 of the Civil Act or the registered domicile that is moved-in according to the intent of the title holder, shall be included therein unless there are special circumstances, and a postal item shall be delivered to the title holder at that time, unless there are special circumstances, such as return of it when it is sent by means of registration.

Based on the above legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Nos. 1, 2, and 5 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that a tax notice following the instant disposition was lawfully served on the Plaintiff at the time of

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

① On November 1, 2007, the Defendant sent a tax notice by registered mail to the right-hand side of the Seoul OOO-dong 648-28, the Plaintiff’s domicile on November 13, 2007, but returned on November 13, 2007. Accordingly, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff’s domicile was changed on November 2, 2007, and then re-issued a tax notice by registered mail to 508-77, the address of the Plaintiff’s domicile on the changed resident registration. The details that can be deemed that the registered mail re-issued was treated as return or other impossible delivery are still not verified.

② In relation to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff appears to have been interested in the transfer income tax at the time when submitting the documents necessary for calculating the transfer income tax amount, namely, the certificate of taxation (tax payment) by local tax item issued by the head of O3 head of O3 Dong of Seoul, Seoul, on October 11, 2007, and submitting a receipt related to the fees of a certified judicial scrivener and a receipt for licensed real estate agent fees related to the transfer, etc., and recognized as necessary expenses. Therefore, at the time, the Plaintiff could have sufficiently anticipated that the tax would have been imposed due to the change in ownership

4. Conclusion

The part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 5,223,120 among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.