Article 11 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act can be served by public notice on a corporation.

Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that where service by public notice may be made by public notice as stipulated in Article 11(1)3 of the same Act and Article 7 of the same Act, the term “where domicile or business office is not evident” means where it cannot be confirmed even by the resident registration card or corporate registry, etc., and where service by public notice is not possible in principle for the representative director to receive it at the seat of the principal office, or where service by public notice is impossible, the service by public notice may be made only when the corporate registry, etc. is investigated into the corporate registry, etc

Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu375 decided Jun. 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1039) 90Nu1960 decided Jan. 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 77) 91Nu12813 decided Feb. 25, 1992 (Gong192,1201)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Attorneys Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu18939 delivered on March 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act where service by public notice can be carried out by public notice as stipulated in Article 11(1)3 of the same Act and Article 7 of the same Act refers to cases where it is impossible to confirm the address or place of business by means of resident registration cards or corporate registry, etc. In principle, where service by public notice is impossible at the seat of the principal office, or where service by public notice is impossible, service by public notice may be made only when it is impossible to serve on the representative after investigating the corporate registry, etc. at the seat of the principal office, etc., whether the principal office is transferred, whether the representative director is changed, or the representative director’s address on the corporate registry, etc., was confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu375, Jun. 14, 198; Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1960, Jan. 15, 191; 91Nu128

Therefore, as determined by the court below, if the defendant sent a tax notice to the non-party Samsung Steel Co., Ltd. to the location of its principal office and returned to the plaintiff's address, etc., which was the representative director of the plaintiff 1, without confirming the address of the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1's address, etc., were promptly served by public notice, this constitutes a case which does not meet the requirements for service by public notice, and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.