A. Whether Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act stipulate procedures for collecting taxes against the secondary taxpayer are mandatory provisions (affirmative)

(b) Service of tax documents to persons confined in prisons, etc.;

(c) If a notice of payment to an individual is served on the company whose representative director is the representative director, whether the service is proper (negative);

D. Whether on-site investigations of single taxable objects and the mixture of estimated investigations are permitted (negative);

A. Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which provide for procedures for collecting taxes against secondary taxpayers, are compulsory provisions that aim to ensure the fairness of tax administration and, at the same time, to inform taxpayers of the details of the disposition of imposition in detail and to ensure the decision of whether to object and convenience in filing an appeal.

B. As there is no provision applicable mutatis mutandis under the Framework Act on National Taxes to the same special provision as Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act, service of tax documents on a person confined to prisons, etc. is served to his/her domicile pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless there

(c) A notice of payment to an individual is served to the office of the company to which he is the representative director and is received by the managing director of that company who is not the principal shall not be deemed to be a lawful service.

(d) it is not allowed to determine the tax base amount by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation with respect to a single taxable object under the Corporate Tax Act;

(a) Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu295 delivered on July 10, 1984; d. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7705 delivered on June 27, 1989; d. Supreme Court Decision 78Nu381 delivered on December 26, 1978; 88Nu712 delivered on June 27, 1989

[Judgment of the court below]

Mapo Tax Office et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1031, 1032 decided June 16, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Defendant’s director of the tax office.

According to Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, when the chief of a tax office intends to collect national taxes, etc. from a secondary taxpayer, he/she shall notify the tax year, tax item, tax amount, basis for calculation thereof, payment period, place of payment, the amount to be collected from a secondary taxpayer, the basis for calculation thereof, and other necessary matters. A notice of payment shall be accompanied by a notice of payment. The above provision is a mandatory provision from the purport of ensuring fairness in tax administration and at the same time notifying the taxpayer of the details of the disposition of taxation in detail to ensure convenience in the decision of objection and appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu295 delivered on July 10, 1984). Thus, in issuing the notice of the instant Class A earned income tax, etc., the court below made a notice of payment without the date of preparation to the Plaintiff, and the second taxpayer's notice of payment to the representative director was served to the non-party company that the plaintiff received by the non-party head of the management division.

After recognizing the above facts, the court below held that since the plaintiff's secondary tax liability is an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company against the plaintiff's individual, the notice of payment shall be served to the warden of the non-party company if the plaintiff is under the custody of the non-party company, and that the notice of payment in this case received by the chief of the management office

However, Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "documents prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the holder of the title deed, and there are no special provisions such as Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, a tax document service for a person confined in prison, etc. shall be served on the person at his domicile

The court below erred in finding that the notice of payment in this case should be served to the prison warden when the second taxpayer is in prison, but the notice of payment in this case was served to the office of the non-party company that cannot be seen as the place of service of the plaintiff and received it by the managing director who is not the principal. Thus, the court below's decision that the notice of payment in this case was unlawful is just, and there is no argument about this issue.

2. The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and the grounds of appeal by the director of the Small and Medium Tax Office are examined thickness.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the defendant calculates the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax of the non-party company Gap 1 and 1983 at the construction site of 1981 to 1983, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 stated that the non-party 4 was false, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were not recorded in the 1981 to 1983 to 1983 to 4, and the non-party 4 were not recorded in the 4th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 96th 6th 6th 196th 19 1st 8th 196th 6th 8th 196th 3th 6th 19.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, according to the records, it is not allowed to determine the tax base by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation with respect to a single taxable object under the Corporate Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 78Nu381, Dec. 26, 1978), since the defendant, in determining the tax base and tax amount of this case, some of the remaining parts are determined by the field investigation method based on false books, which is not recognized by the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the judgment of the court below that the defendant's calculation method of the tax base and tax amount of this case is illegal, based on the above recognized facts, is just in its conclusion and there is no error of law such as theory

3. The court below's decision is clear by the court below that the portion exceeding the reasonable amount of tax on the original market was revoked on the ground that the plaintiff was liable to pay part of the amount of tax on the original market among the amount of each taxation in this case, and that the court below did not deduct labor costs, etc. recognized as the result of appraisal from the tax base and did not have calculated the tax amount by deducting the amount of tax from the tax base. Thus, the court below's appeal on the premise that the amount of labor costs based on the appraisal value and the amount of labor costs required for news knowledge was deducted from the

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)