The meaning of "if the address or place of business, which is one of the requirements for service by public notice, is not clear"

Article 11 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996) provides that "where the address or place of business of a person subject to service is not clear" refers to where the tax authority investigates the address or place of business of a person subject to service with due care as a good manager, but the address or place of business of the person subject to service is unknown (the case holding that the tax official has a duty to confirm the residence of the person subject to service by questioning the neighbor, head of Tong/Ban, etc. and confirm the residence of the person subject to service with due care).

Article 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15189, Dec. 31, 1996)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu375 Decided June 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1039) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4246 Decided July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2438), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7146 Decided August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2696), Supreme Court Decision 92Da35431 Decided December 11, 1992 (Gong193, 459), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4134 Decided October 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3019)

Plaintiff

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu25366 delivered on September 23, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, on June 12, 1984, the plaintiff acquired forest land as stated in the judgment of the court below on September 28, 1983, which was acquired by public notice, and transferred on August 4, 1989, together with a sales contract and a certificate of transaction under the name of the non-party 1, and made a final return of capital gains tax base on May 30, 199; the defendant calculated capital gains tax and defense tax based on the standard market price on the ground that the actual transaction price reported by the plaintiff was not reliable; the defendant determined to impose capital gains tax and defense tax on the plaintiff on the 2nd anniversary of the above 19th anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd of the 19th anniversary of the 2nd of the 2nd residential.

However, Article 11 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter "the Act") provides that "where the address or place of business is not clear" as one of the reasons for service by public notice under Article 11 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter "the Act") refers to cases where the tax authorities investigate the address or place of business of a person who is obliged to receive service with due care as a good manager, but the address or place of business cannot be known (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4

According to the records, if the plaintiff's resident registration address B5 is the 4.63 square meters of the 1st floor, 4.63 square meters of the 2nd floor, 4.63 square meters of the 4.63 square meters of the 1st floor, and the 1st and the 2nd floor are the independence in the structure and use respectively. The 2nd floor is the non-party 3's family living in the 2nd floor, and the plaintiff's living in the 2nd floor after December 20, 193. According to the above facts, since the non-party 2, who is the defendant's employee, had resided in the above 2nd house B 5th house, and the plaintiff could not be deemed to have moved to the 2nd house's residence without permission if the non-party 2 moved to the 2nd house B 5th house B and the 5th house house's residence, and the plaintiff could not be deemed to have been residing in the 2nd house.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the service by public notice of this case was lawful is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for service by public notice of this case. Therefore, the appeal on this point is with merit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)