If an apartment security guard with the right to receive registered mail has received a tax payment notice, it is reasonable to deem that the lawfully served on the person liable for tax payment.

If the apartment security guards have delivered the registered object to the apartment security guards, and the apartment security guards have not raised any objection to such delivery method, it can be deemed that the apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail to the apartment security guards. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the apartment security guards have received the tax payment notice and the tax payment notice has been lawfully served on the taxpayer.

2017Guhap61127 global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

○○

동★★세무서장

on October 30, 2017

on October 2016 20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s global income tax amounting to KRW 79,485,680 for the Plaintiff on May 23, 2016 (Additional Tax) accrued to the Plaintiff in the year 2010

It confirms that the disposition of imposition is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 주식회사 ◈◈◈◈◈에 대한 근저당권에 기하여 위 회사 소유의 부동산(◎◎시 □□면 △리 53-1 도로 1,674㎡ 등)에 대해 임의경매신청을 하여 배당기일인2010. 9. 17. 원금 1,265,160,000원 이자 192,449,138원 합계 1,457,609,138원을 배당받았다.

B. From May 9, 2016 to December 21, 2016, the head of the Leecheon-gu Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff on the 23th of the same month, and concluded a tax investigation by omitting the global income tax return on the part of the interest out of the said dividends. On the 25th of the same month, a notice of tax investigation results (the corrected tax base KRW 197,113,681, the calculated tax amount KRW 48,453,165, the anticipated tax amount, KRW 79,485,682, hereinafter “instant notice”) was sent to the Plaintiff by registered mail and served to the apartment security guards located in the domicile of the Plaintiff following

C. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) issued a notice of tax payment that imposed global income tax of KRW 79,485,680 (including additional tax of KRW 31,122,463) and local income tax of KRW 7,948,560 (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”); and (b) sent the registered mail to the Plaintiff’s domicile on May 26, 201; (c) the registered mail was received by the security guard of the apartment residing in the Plaintiff and kept in the guard room (the part on imposition of global income tax of the instant tax payment notice).

D. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant’s employees re-printed the tax payment notice to the Plaintiff, and visited the Plaintiff’s domicile, but the Plaintiff did not deliver it to the Plaintiff without having his/her domicile. On the same day, the Plaintiff got out of the region due to telephone conversations with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was able to receive documents after June 2, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 3

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The exclusion period of imposition of the instant disposition is May 31, 2016, which falls under five years from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2016.However, given that the instant tax notice was not served on the Plaintiff by May 31, 2016, the instant disposition is null and void as it imposed the exclusion period of imposition.

B. Determination

On the other hand, with regard to the issue of whether the notice of tax payment in this case was served on the plaintiff, the ordinary mail in the apartment in which the person liable for tax payment resides is collected from the apartment's residents to the above mail, and in the case of special mail such as registered mail, the house security guard has delivered the apartment to the resident. If the apartment security guard's owner did not raise any objection to the method of delivery, the above taxpayer and the resident of the apartment is deemed to have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registration mail to the security guard of the apartment, so it is reasonable to deem that the apartment security guard received the notice of tax payment, and that the notice of tax payment has been served on the taxpayer lawfully (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du3679, May 15, 1998).

살피건대, 갑 제4호증, 을 제2호증의 1, 2, 4, 을 제3, 4호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 이 사건 납세고지서가 송달될 무렵 원고가 거주하는 아파트인 ★★시 ♠♠구 ♥♥동 898-6 ♣♣아파트의 경비원은 입주자에게 택배, 등기우편물 등 특수우편물이 배달되는 경우 이를 대신 수령한 후 거주자에게 전달해 온 사실, 원고와 관련 있는 것으로 보이는 불명의 남성이 2016. 5. 29. 이 사건 납세고지서를 수령한 경비원에게 전화를 하였고, 이에 위 경비원이 세무서에서 온 우편물이 있으니 수령하라고 말하였으나 위 남성은 세무서 등에서 온 모든 우편물을 무조건 반송시키고 일체 우편물의 수취를 거부하라고 지시한 사실, 이에 위 경비원은 집배원에게 이 사건 통지서와 납세고지서를 반송할 것이라고 연락하여 집배원이 2016. 5. 31. 이 사건 통지서와 납세고지서를 반송처리한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고는 다른 아파트 주민들과 마찬가지로 등기우편물 등의 수령권한을 아파트의 경비원에게 묵시적으로 위임하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 이 사건 납세고지서가 경비원에게 전달된 2016. 5. 27. 이전에 원고가 위와 같은 우편물 배달방법 에 관하여 별다른 이의를 제기한 사정이 없으므로, 이 사건 납세고지서는 원고가 거주 하는 아파트의 경비원이 이를 수령한 2016. 5. 27. 적법하게 송달되었다. 그리고 원고가 경비원에게 이 사건 납세고지서를 반송하도록 지시하였고, 실제로 이 사건 납세고지서가 반송된 사정은 위와 같은 이 사건 납세고지서의 송달 효력이 발생한 이후의 사정으로서 그 효력에 영향을 줄 수 있는 사정이라고 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff that the instant tax payment notice was not served on or before May 31, 2016 was not served on the Plaintiff.

his argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.