service of the notice to the address of the person who is born, is legitimate.

Even if the place of residence is to be transferred, if the address is not changed on the resident registration and the person who is served a written notice instead of the address resides and is served with it, the service of the notice is lawful.

Article 114 (Determination, Revision and Notification of Tax Base for Transfer Income and Tax Amount)

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap421 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 3, 2014

July 1, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. The primary purport of the claim

On October 0, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that there is no disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,000 for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff.

2. Preliminary purport of claim

The Defendant confirmed that the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff on October 0, 2008 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1-2.

A. A. Around October 00, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○, Inc. and reported the transfer income tax on three and three parcels. However, around October 00, 2004, the Defendant: (a) determined the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax base as KRW 00,000,000; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the remainder of KRW 00,000,000,000 after deducting the calculated tax amount as KRW 00,000,000,000 from the additional tax amount as KRW 00,000,000.

B. In the process of an on-site investigation of capital gains tax in 2008, the Defendant revealed that the actual transfer value of the said ○○-ri 86 and 3 parcels was KRW 0,000,000,000. On October 0, 2008, the Defendant additionally corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 for capital gains tax corresponding to 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the first place, the Defendant did not serve a tax payment notice on October 0, 2008 on the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition did not exist, and the instant disposition is null and void because the defects were serious and clear.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

We examine the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims together.

피고가 원고에게 2008. 0. 0.자 납세고지서를 송달하였는지에 관하여 살피건대, 갑제3호증의 1, 2, 3, 갑 제4, 5, 9, 10호증, 갑 제11호증의 1 내지 10, 갑 제13 내지 20호증의 각 1, 2의 각 기재 및 증인 □□□, △△△의 각 증언에 의하면, 원고가 ○○ ○○군 ○○면 ○○리 69에 거주하다가 2003. 0.경 ○○시 ○○동으로 이사를 한 뒤 현재까지 주로 ○○시에 거주하고 있었던 사실은 인정되나, 한편 을 제2, 4호증의 각 1, 2, 을 제5호증의 1, 5, 을 제7호증의 1, 3, 을 제8호증의 1, 2, 을 제9호증의 각 기재, 증인 ◇◇◇의 증언, 이 법원의 ○○○○우편취급국장에 대한 각 사실조회결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고가 2003. 0.경 ○○으로 이사한 뒤에도 주민등록상의 주소지는 여전히 위 ○○리 69에 두고 있었고, 이에 피고는 2003년경부터 2004년경까지 여러 차례의 양도소득세 관련 납세고지서를 위 ○○리 69로 송달하였으며, 그에 따라 원고가 양도소득세를 납부한 사실, 피고는 2008. 0. 00. 우체국 등기우편으로 이 사건 2008. 0. 0.자 납세고지서도 마찬가지로 위 ○○리 69에 송달한 사실, 지방자치단체인 ○○군 역시 원고에 대한 2003. 0.경부터 2008. 0.경까지의 지방세의 납세고지서를 모두 ○○리 69로 송달하였으며, 원고는 고지받은 지방세를 거의 제때 납부한 사실, 이 사건 2008. 0. 0.자 납세고지서가 송달된 2008. 0. 00.경 당시에 위 ○○리 69에는 원고의 모 ☆☆☆와 ★★★이 거주하고 있으면서 원고의 우편물을 대신 수령해 왔고 현재까지도 그곳에 거주하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실을 종합하면 피고가 2008. 0. 00. 원고에 대한 이 사건 처분에 관한 납세고지서를 등기우편으로 원고의 주민등록지인 위 ○○리 69에 송달한 것은 적법하다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is nonexistent or null and void is without merit on the premise that the defendant did not serve a tax notice.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.