[1] In case where the other party of a taxation files an objection or a request for review against a taxation disposition, the initial date of the period for filing the objection or request for review

[2] In a case where a person to receive documents, such as a person liable for duty payment, etc., who is the other party to a tax disposition, has expressly or explicitly delegated the right to receive mail and other documents to the other party, whether the delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully delivered the documents to the delegating person (affirmative), and whether the delegated person shall be an employee or a person who

[3] The case holding that a payment notice through apartment security guards was lawful

[1] Article 61 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998) which provides the period for a request for a review of a taxation disposition refers to the date on which a person becomes aware of the fact that the relevant disposition was made by means of notification, public announcement, or other methods. However, this refers to the date when a person other than the party to the disposition or a person who received a notice of a disposition pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes files an objection or a request for a review, and the period shall be calculated based on the date of receipt of the notice

[2] In case where a person to receive documents, such as a taxpayer, etc. who is the other party to a taxation, has expressly or explicitly delegated the right to receive mail or other documents to another person, the delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully delivered the documents to the person to receive the documents, and the delegated person shall not be deemed to have been an employee of the delegating person or a person living together.

[3] The case holding that, in the apartment where special mail, such as ordinary mail or registered mail, is delivered on the apartment where a taxpayer resides, apartment security guards have received and delivered it to the resident, and the apartment residents, including the taxpayer, have raised any objection to the delivery method of such special mail, if there is no objection against the taxpayer, it is reasonable to view that the apartment security guards, who reside in the taxpayer, have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail, etc. to the apartment security guards, the apartment security guards are deemed to have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail, etc.

[1] Article 61 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998) / [2] Articles 8 and 10 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [3] Articles 8 and 10 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3934 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3185) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du4375 delivered on September 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2593), Supreme Court Decision 98Du16828 delivered on February 12, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 582) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7859 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong192, 943), Supreme Court Decision 98Du1161 delivered on April 10, 198 (Gong198Sang, 1389) 198Du4979 delivered on April 197, 209 (Gong1994, 1389) 197Du19849 delivered on March 1984. 197

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 98Gu1385 delivered on December 29, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: on January 15, 1997, the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the real estate of this case to the non-party 1, the defendant issued a disposition of this case to the plaintiff on the disposition of this case on January 15, 1997; on January 22 of the same year, the non-party 2, the security guard of ○○ apartment, sent a notice of tax payment of this case to the non-party 1, ○ apartment (dong and lake omitted), which is the plaintiff's domicile, by registered mail, received it from the head of ○ apartment (dong and lake omitted) on January 23 of the same year; and on the apartment in which the plaintiff's residence, the non-party 2, the security guard received it and delivered it to the resident; accordingly, there was no objection against the delivery method of the non-party 1, including the plaintiff.

Based on the above facts, the court below determined that the plaintiff's subsequent disposition of this case was unlawful since the apartment security guards received a supplementary delivery under Article 10 (4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter referred to as "former Framework Act on National Taxes") on the date when the pertinent disposition became known (the date of receipt of the notice of disposition)" under Article 61 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes means the date when the parties became aware of the fact that such disposition was made by public announcement or other method, and it does not mean the date when the parties knew the fact that such disposition was made by abstract methods, and if the documents stating the disposition were delivered to the address of the parties, etc. lawfully notified the plaintiff as to the transfer income of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's subsequent disposition on behalf of the non-party 2 as the plaintiff's employer or employee, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's subsequent disposition of this case was unlawful.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. "Date of knowing that the pertinent disposition was taken" under Article 61 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which set the period for a request for a review regarding a taxation, refers to the date when the person becomes aware of the fact that the relevant disposition was taken by notification, public announcement, or any other means. However, where a person other than the party to the disposition or the person prescribed to receive a notice of a disposition pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes files an objection or a request for a review, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the notice of a disposition was received (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu3934, Sept. 12, 1997; 98Du4375, Sept. 22, 1998; 98Du16828, Feb. 12, 1999; 9Du3828, Apr. 197, 198; 190Du828, Apr. 19, 1998).

B. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, apartment security guards have received and delivered the notification of the instant disposition to the resident where special mail, such as ordinary mail, registered mail, etc., is delivered to the resident, and the apartment residents including the plaintiff did not raise any objection with respect to the method of delivering ordinary mail. Thus, if the facts are identical, it is reasonable to deem that the resident of the apartment where the plaintiff is resident has implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail, etc. to the apartment security guards (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu16864, Jan. 11, 1994; 98Du3679, May 15, 198). Accordingly, the apartment security guards, who were the apartment security guards, received the notification of the instant disposition from the mail office, falls under the date of receiving the notification of disposition as provided by Article 61(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the plaintiff's petition and the plaintiff's petition for a trial against this case are unlawful for the following reasons.

C. Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the non-party 2, an apartment security guard, was not a plaintiff's employee or other employee or a person living together, but was actually receiving documents such as registered mail, etc. served to the residents of the apartment, and cannot be deemed to have been delegated with the authority to process the matters subject to the disposition of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and did not regard January 23 of the same year as the lawful delivery date on which the notice of tax payment of this case was served to the non-party 2. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the initial date of filing an objection or a request for review under Article 61 (1) of

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)