Examination Income 2013-0122 ( October 10, 2014)

Tax imposed on the basis of a written confirmation, etc. is justified, and a tax notice received by the wife is valid by means of supplementary service.

The tax imposed on the basis of the statement at the time of confirmation, investigation, etc. is just, and the tax notice received by the wife was served on the basis of supplementary service, and the time when the retainers are reverted is the date of the contract, and the argument of violation of the tax jurisdiction is in violation of the principle of

Articles 8 and 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 1-2, 6, 11, 39, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 2 and 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

2014Guhap10875 global income and revocation of disposition

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

on 015 01 October 201

on 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on May 20, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The delegation contract of this case

1) From September 7, 2006 to May 28, 2007, the ○○ Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a special tax investigation on Kim○ and ○○ Stock Company operated by Kim○ and its representative director; (b) deemed that Kim○ had omitted gift tax; and (c) sent the gift tax assessment data to the head of ○○ Tax Office.

2) On June 20, 2007, the head of the ○○ Tax Office imposed a gift tax of KRW 0,000 with respect to the bypassing donation on the Kim○○, and (2) on November 15, 2007, imposed a gift tax of KRW 0,000 with respect to the dividend of a corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the imposition of the gift tax of this case”) on the disposition of imposition of the gift tax of KRW 1,200 with respect to the dividend of the corporation, and when a part of it is referred to, the imposition of the gift tax of KRW 1

3) On December 10, 207, the Plaintiff (the certified tax accountant who operated the ○○ Tax Accounting Office in Gangnam-gu, Seoul) was delegated by the agent of the △△△△△△, Kim △△△△, and the agent of the ○○○ on behalf of the △△△△△△, Kim △△△△ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant delegation contract”), and prepared the following contracts.

Agency Contract for Appeal

A delegating (A): Kim○-○

A person who has accepted a case (B): 000

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Agreement is to delegate the power of Gap to Eul to act as an agent for all activities relating to the performance of duties of Gap in relation to the objection, request for examination, request for adjudication, and request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection (hereinafter referred to as the "Request for Appeal").

(2) Summary of the case

- Taxpayer: Kim ○

-Items: Gift tax

- The disposition office: ○ head of tax office

- Amount of notified tax: 1'0,000 won in case, 2'0,000 won in case

- The notice date: June 20, 2007; November 15, 2007

Article 5 (Remuneration)

B The fees for the services it has accepted shall be refunded (including interest on refund) or cancelled by appeal as referred to in Article 1, 1 of the reduced amount of tax (charges) and 20%, and 10% of the reduced amount of tax (charges) by appeal as referred to in Article 1.

Article 6 (Payment of Remuneration)

(1) Beginning money: A shall pay 200 million won in advance at the same time as this contract is made to B. This start money shall not be refunded even if it has been lost for appeal.

(2) Balance: A shall pay the remainder remaining after the deduction of the start-up payment from the amount of remuneration under Article 5 at the time the winning of the appeal becomes final and conclusive, within seven days after the final and conclusive date; Provided, That the intermediate payment may be paid by mutual agreement between A and B.

Article 8 (Responsibility for Elimination of Drugs)

(2) In the event of cancellation after the commencement of the preparation of a petition for appeal due to the circumstances of Party A, the amount already paid shall not be demanded to be returned, and Party A shall pay half of the amount of remuneration provided for in Article 5 premised on the winning of the entire amount.

(3) If a contract is cancelled due to the circumstances of B, B shall immediately refund the amount of remuneration received previously.

4) After the delegation contract of this case, the Tax Tribunal received a request for a trial in the name of Kim○○ with respect to the pertinent disposition on the pertinent date indicated in the column for the appeal on the pertinent date, and the Tax Tribunal decided to refund the amount recorded in the column for refund in the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case on the pertinent date stated in the column for the decision (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above requests for a trial, two cases and decisions” by sequence 1, two cases and decisions).

No.

Date of appeal

Object of appeal

Date of decision

Refund Amount

1

December 2, 2007

1Gift Gift Tax Imposition Disposition

208.9.9

0,000 won out of 000 won

2

208.10

2Gift Gift Tax Imposition Disposition

209.3.

0,000 Won 0,000

5) Of the letter of delegation form for the second tax appeal, the letter of delegation form is called "Gim○○" in the letter of delegation form, and the proxy column was printed in the letter as "O△△△△△ (a certified tax accountant operating the tax accounting corporation)", and his name was affixed on the right side, respectively.

6) Meanwhile, on November 7, 2008, 200 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "the starting money of this case") was paid directly by the principal on July 31, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the second amount") to the Plaintiff through Kim △△△△△ on the day on which the delegation contract was made (hereinafter referred to as "the starting money of this case"); on November 7, 2008, 200 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "the principal money of this case"); and on July 31, 2009, 200 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "the total amount of each of the above money").

B. Disposition of this case

1) From March 201, 201, the ○○○ District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant investigation”) investigated whether the Plaintiff and the △△△△△△△△ were suspected of taking good offices, namely, whether they received KRW 1 and KRW 2 as to the good offices of public officials belonging to the Tax Tribunal in relation to the first and second tax appeal case from Kim○○ (hereinafter “instant investigation”), but decided not to prosecute the Defendant on February 8, 2013.

3) After that, the ○○ regional tax office received the following confirmations from the △△△△△ in the course of investigating the tax accounting corporation on April 2013, 201, and around that time, received the delegation contract and the instant investigation data.

Written Confirmation

1. Personal information;

(a) Corporate name: Tax group △△△; and

(c) Representative: △△△; and

2. Details of confirmation;

The above case was accepted by Lee ○○ Tax Accountants in relation to the second appeal against Kim ○○○, and this certified tax accountant received from Kim○○ on December 10, 2007 the down payment of KRW 00 billion on November 7, 2008, the intermediate payment of KRW 00 billion on July 31, 2009, and the total amount of KRW 0 billion on July 31, 2009 (Attachment of the contract) from Lee○○ Tax Accountants in relation to the above case, and confirmed that he received the fees from Lee○○ Tax Accountants in relation to the above case and reported the tax return.

- - Future -

Date, amount (cost), content and height;

omission in a report of receipt of down payment by a check from ○ Tax Accountants on December 1, 2007 00,000,000

After receiving the cashier's checks on July 31, 2009, Kim △△△△ (employee of the Lao △△△△ Tax Office) from the bank account transfer after receiving the cashier's checks on the 0,000,000.

On July 31, 2009, a written report on transfer of paid fees to an account of cashier's checks, 256,500

On July 31, 2009, a revised return to be withdrawn after receipt of a check.

Total 090,000,000

April 2013

The above-mentioned person

○○ Head of Regional Tax Office Haw

3) In light of the terms and conditions of the delegation contract and written confirmation and the investigation data of this case, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff received each of the instant money from Kim○○ in return for the provision of services under the delegation contract of this case, and notified the head of △△ Tax Office of taxation data around April 18, 2013.

4) The head of △△△ Tax office imposed the exclusion period for the imposition of value-added tax on the instant retainers, but determined that it constitutes the requirements for the imposition of global income tax. On May 14, 2013, the head of △△△△ Tax office notified the taxation data to the head of ○○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu ○○○ apartment 6 Dong 05 Dong 05 (hereinafter referred to as “Nowon-gu apartment”) (in relation to the instant 1 and 2 gold, the head of △△△ Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data [the Plaintiff’s correction and notification of KRW 00 for the second half-year value-added tax on December 1, 2008, and the first half-year value-added tax on October 1, 2013 to the Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the disposition for imposition of each of the above value-added tax, and the Plaintiff continues to file a lawsuit under this court’s 2014Gu13591];

5) However, on May 16, 2013, after the date of notification of the above taxation data, the Plaintiff transferred the registered domicile from Nowon-gu apartment to the National Assembly of Yeongdeungpo-gu to the 6, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City Office of Assembly 07 (hereinafter referred to as the “Mido Officetel”).

6) After confirming the Plaintiff’s transfer of the registered domicile, the head of ○○ Tax Office immediately notified the Defendant, who is the head of the competent tax office of taxation.

7) On May 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”) regarding the retainer money of this case.

(c) Service of tax payment notices;

1) On May 21, 2013, May 21, 2013, on the day following the date of the instant disposition, the Defendant’s public official visited the Plaintiff to ○○○ Building 06 (hereinafter “△△△△△△△”) located in the Dong-dong Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “○○○○○ Building ○○”) at the time of the △△△△ Construction, which was the location of the principal office at the time of the instant disposition, but the Plaintiff was absent, and no contact was made, and the female employees of the company were allowed to refuse the receipt of the tax payment notice and visited the Plaintiff at the office, but they did not met the Plaintiff at that place.

2) On May 22, 2013, at around 09:10, the Defendant’s public official visited △△△△△△, but the Plaintiff still remains absent, and the female employees refused to receive the tax payment notice, and returned the Plaintiff’s representative director’s office’s tax payment notice prior to the entrance of the office room (hereinafter “the service of custody 1”).

3) On May 23, 2013, the Defendant’s public official visited the apartment of Nowon-gu around 14:10, but did not meet the Plaintiff.

4) On May 23, 2013, at around 16:00, the Defendant’s public official visited an officetel, but failed to meet the Plaintiff, issued a tax payment notice prior to the instant officetel entrance (hereinafter “the instant service by attracting 2”); and hereinafter “the instant service by attracting 1”).

5) On May 23, 2013, the Defendant’s public officials visited the apartment again in Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 23, 2013. The Defendant’s public officials met the Plaintiff at that place, and the Plaintiff said that he received the first custody delivery notice at that time, but refused to prepare a receipt.

6) On May 23, 2013, public officials belonging to the Defendant sent a tax payment notice to Nowon-gu apartment by registered mail. On May 24, 2013, the delivery certificate pertaining to the above mail is indicated as follows (hereinafter “instant mail delivery”).

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 18, 2013, against which the instant disposition was lodged, but was dismissed on March 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 8, 10 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 10 through 13 (including those with above numbers), the result of the court’s verification of recording files, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

B. Determination on the assertion that a tax notice has not been served

1) Summary of the parties’ assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the delivery of this case is null and void because the delivery of this case did not meet the legal requirements, and that the delivery of this case was not only served as an apartment in Nowon-gu, but also did not receive it directly at the time of the Plaintiff, and that the delivery of this case was not effective. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the payment notice of this case was not lawfully served prior to May 31, 2013, the expiration date of the exclusion period of imposition.

The defendant asserts that the delivery of this case is valid because the delivery of this case satisfies all the legal requirements. At the time of the delivery of this case, the plaintiff's address was apartment in Nowon-gu, and the plaintiff directly received this and signed on the delivery certificate, and the above delivery of registered mail is valid.

2) Determination

(1) The service of attracting the instant case

(A) The mandatory nature of the service-related provision

Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "a document under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the person in whose name the document is designated (referring to the person designated as the recipient; hereinafter the same shall apply)." Article 8(4) of the same Act provides that "a document may be served on the person who shall receive the document at the place of service, or his/her employee, or a person who may make reasonable judgement of the document refuses to receive the document without justifiable grounds." Thus, the delivery of the document under tax law has a significant impact on the formation of the tax claim obligation relationship between the State and the taxpayer. In particular, since the delivery of the tax payment notice takes place at the time of the collection procedure and has a significant meaning as a basis for the objection period of the taxpayer, it is reasonable to interpret that the provision under the Framework Act on National Taxes has no legal effect in preparation for disputes between the parties.

(B) Attraction 1 Service

Article 8 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that documents shall be served at the domicile, residence, place of business or office of a person to be served.

In addition, the place of business or office of the person to be served refers to the place of business or office of the person to be served, and the place of business or office of the person to be served does not fall under this. The office of the company to be served with the person to be served is not the place of business or office of the person to be served, and such office or office is not the place of business or office of the person to be served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma535, Jul.

In this case, △△△△ Corporation is a company with separate legal personality from the plaintiff. Thus, △△△△ Corporation is only the plaintiff's working place, and cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's address, residence, place of business or office, and therefore, the delivery of △△△△ Corporation cannot be recognized.

(C) Second custody service

According to Article 8(4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the service by detention may be limited to cases where a person to receive documents at a place where the documents are to be served, his/her employee, or a person who is qualified to make reasonable judgment as a person who refuses to receive documents without justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du13908, Apr. 9, 2004); and even if a person liable to receive a tax payment notice fails to place where a document is partially received to avoid receipt upon the lapse of the exclusion period of the disposition of imposition, and the Defendant’s public official has provided a tax payment notice at a place where the document is to be served because it was impossible for the person to receive the document and the person to receive the supplementary service to do so, it cannot be deemed that such notice was served on the basis of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu5094, May 23, 197; 2003Du13908, supra)

As to the instant case, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff, at the time of delivery of the second custody, was in an officetel, and the Plaintiff refused to receive a tax payment notice without good cause (see, e.g., the Plaintiff is deemed to have never existed in the said officetel at that time), and the validity of the second custody delivery cannot be recognized.

(2) Service by mail of this case

(A) The Plaintiff’s address at the time of delivery of the instant mail

The address refers to the "place on which the life is based" (Article 18(1) of the Civil Act), and the address can be two or more at the same time (Article 18(2) of the Civil Act).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s address at the time of delivery of the instant mail can be sufficiently recognized that both the Plaintiff’s office and the office and the office and the office and the office and office and the office and office and the office and office and the office and office and the office and office and the office and office and the office and office and the office and office and office and the office and office and the office and office and office and the office and office and the office and office and office and the office and office and office and the office and office and office and the office and office and office and office and the office and office and office and office and the office and office and office and office and office and the office and office and office and office and office

(1) In light of the Plaintiff’s relationship with the △△△△△ and the Plaintiff’s occupation, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have been aware that the instant disposition was imminent around April 2013, when the Plaintiff was investigated on March 23, 2012 on the charge of the instant good offices. In light of the Plaintiff’s relationship with the △△△△△△△ and the Plaintiff’s occupation, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have been aware that the instant disposition was imminent.

(2) The Plaintiff, as a certified tax accountant, seems to have been aware that the expiration date of the exclusion period of imposition of the global income tax of this case was May 30, 2013, and that the service of tax payment notice was invalid after the expiration of the period.

(3) On May 21, 2013 and May 23, 2013, the Defendant’s public official stated that the Plaintiff was not at the location, and that the said officetel manager was also aware of the fact of the Plaintiff’s transfer.

(4) On May 23, 2013, the Plaintiff was located in a place where the Defendant’s official visited the apartment in Nowon-gu. Since the above date is a summary, the Plaintiff does not seem to have visited the family on holidays.

(5) The Plaintiff appears to have been sharing the domicile of the most △△△△△ and his children prior to the transfer of the domicile to the officetel on May 16, 2013 (the Plaintiff did not submit materials showing the details of the family’s transfer of the domicile despite the order to prepare the name of the court), and on December 11, 2013, re-transfer the domicile to the apartment of Nowon-gu.

(6) On August 13, 2012, the date of the moving-in report to a female-do officetel, the Plaintiff established △△△△ Company, a company prior to the nine-month period from the date of the moving-in report, and thereafter has been employed as the auditor or the representative director of the said company from that time. Therefore, if the Plaintiff was required to move his address for the convenience of commuting to and from work simply, the address was already transferred at the time of the establishment of the said company.

(B) The recipient of the instant tax payment notice

The signature of the recipient column of the delivery certificate of the instant tax notice constitutes the portion of the private document among the public documents, and thus, the Defendant is the burden of proving the authenticity of the document. There is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff signed the document, and the court may determine whether the document is identical with the written document by comparison (Supreme Court Decision 91Da12707 delivered on October 11, 1991). The written signature of the recipient column of the above delivery certificate appears to be different from the written signature of the Plaintiff at the end of the interrogation protocol (No. 11 No. 33 pages) at the time of the investigation of the instant case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s notice of tax payment was not the Plaintiff, but the △△△△△△△△ was received by the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff.

(C) Determination

As seen earlier, the apartment building of this case, which is the place where the tax payment notice of this case was delivered by mail, is the Plaintiff’s domicile. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s wife received the above tax payment notice, the △△△△△△△ was the Plaintiff’s cohabitant, and thus, the above tax payment notice was valid by means of supplementary delivery pursuant to Article 10(4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

Even if the Plaintiff’s apartment building at the time of delivery of the instant case was not the Plaintiff’s domicile, if the person to receive the documents, such as the other party to the taxation disposition, explicitly or implicitly delegates the right to receive postal items and other documents to the other party, the delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully delivered the documents concerned to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ upon receipt of the pertinent documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du1164, Jul. 4, 200; 2010Da10876, May 13, 201). The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the aforementioned evidence, are e.g., the Plaintiff’s office and the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○’s delivery of the documents, and the Plaintiff’s remaining delivery of the documents.

(3) Sub-decisions

As a result, the tax notice of this case was served within the exclusion period of imposition on a person living together with the right to receive supplementary service or service within the exclusion period of imposition, so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion that the underlying taxation principle is violated

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

After the conclusion of the delegation contract of this case, the Plaintiff agreed on the part of the appeal on the imposition of gift tax 2 with Kim○, and returned the retainer to Kim○○○. Kim○ delegated the appeal to the △△△△△△△ in relation to the imposition of gift tax 2. The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the sole basis of the instant confirmation document prepared by the △△△△△△△△.

2) Determination

In principle, when the tax authority intends to correct any error or omission in the details of a return on the tax base or tax amount of value-added tax, etc. due to the erroneous or omission thereof, it shall be subject to the on-site investigation while conducting the on-site investigation. However, the on-site investigation is not conducted against the party or related person’s free will, as long as it is objectively possible to capture actual income, and there are no special restrictions on the method other than the books, and it is recognized that there is such error or omission by other data, such as a written confirmation other than the books, and where it is possible to conduct the on-site investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du81, May 12, 2005; 2005Du12589, Feb. 24, 2006); materials prepared in the course of the investigation or tax investigation may be corrected by other data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1637, Feb. 16, 2007).

In addition to the confirmation document of this case, the defendant issued the instant disposition based on the contents of the statement at the time of the investigation of this case by the delegation contract of this case and related persons, and the delegation contract of this case is not prepared in the investigation process or the investigation process, and the plaintiff also recognized the establishment of the authenticity of this case. There are no circumstances that the above confirmation document is deemed to have been made against the △△△△△'s will, as the public official forced to impose tax, and the following points that can be known based on the above taxation data are reasonable and correct. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant violated the principle of taxation based on the disposition of this case is without merit.

At the time of the investigation into the instant case, the actual holder of the instant money, including the instant payment, corresponds to the fact that: (a) the details of the △△△, Kim○, △△, and the Plaintiff’s statement are the Plaintiff.

(1) The △△△△△ is not the Plaintiff, who delegated the instant confirmation document to it.

(2) During the investigation process of the instant case, Kim ○ and this △△△△ was a witness, and the applicant for tax judgment was the Plaintiff, and the △△△△△ was a person who does not have any awareness about the request of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the KRW 1 of this case to the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff. In the second tax appeal case, the Plaintiff expected to receive the refund decision in return for the payment of the KRW 1 of the instant case, and the instant KRW 2 of the instant case was a contingent fee for the Plaintiff (this △△△). The aforementioned statement is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the delegation contract regarding objection to the imposition of the KRW 2 of the gift tax was agreed upon, and that the objection to the imposition of the KRW 1 was newly delegated

The part concerning objection to the imposition of gift tax by the second gift tax among the instant delegation agreement was rescinded, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that a new contract was concluded between △△△ and Kim○○ is difficult to believe.

(1) Article 8(1) and (2) of the delegation contract provides that when both parties cancel the contract due to the circumstances of the other party, they may put the other party at a disadvantage. It is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff and Kim ○○ agreed to cancel the contract without any dispute.

(2) Although a contract is not necessarily required to be restored to the original state at the time of termination of the contract, the cancellation of the contract without any agreement on the return of the price already paid in the event of termination of the contract constitutes an example of empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da17093, Sept. 13, 1994; 2006Da2490, Nov. 29, 2007; 2006Da2490, 2506, Nov. 29, 2007); and such legal doctrine also applies to a delegation contract. Therefore, if the Plaintiff and Kim○○ agreed on the part of objection to the disposition of imposition of gift tax in Article 2 after the conclusion of the delegation contract in this case, if the Plaintiff agreed on the part of objection to the disposition of imposition of gift tax in this case, it is naturally natural to make an obvious agreement in any form with respect to the return of the retainer amount received on the premise that the Plaintiff accepts all the disposition of gift tax in this case.

(3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the delegation contract was concluded orally between Kim ○○ and the △△△△△△ in relation to the second gift tax imposition. However, in light of the fact that the tax amount imposed exceeds zero billion won, and that the △△△△△△ was deemed to have entered into an ordinary delegation contract in writing as a tax accountant, it is difficult to believe that the △△△△△△ and the △△△△△△△△ was

(4) At the time of the investigation of the instant case, the Plaintiff asked △△△ to take charge of the tax appeal affairs. However, if △△△△ received the second appeal from △△△△△ as the Plaintiff asserted, the Plaintiff need not request △△△△ to take charge of the said affairs.

D. Determination as to the assertion that the time of income attribution was erroneous

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Even if income equivalent to the retainers of this case was reverted to the Plaintiff, the time of reversion.

It should be viewed as around November 2008, when Kim ○-○ was served with the written ruling of the first instance court, not the date of the instant delegation contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff was deemed to have accrued income equivalent to the advance payment on the day of the delegation contract of this case, and the disposition of this case was made by setting the year 2007 as the income reversion year was unlawful.

2) Determination

Article 39 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 48 subparag. 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008) provide that the date of receipt of the total amount of business income from the provision of personal services shall be the earlier date between the date when the service is paid or the date when the service is provided is completed. Thus, if a certified tax accountant accepted the case and agreed on the date of payment, barring any special circumstance, if the certified tax accountant agreed on the commencement amount at the time of receiving the case and agreed on the payment, it shall be deemed that the above commencement amount has occurred on the agreed date of payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9

Article 6 (1) of the instant delegation contract provides that Kim ○ shall pay 200 million won to the Plaintiff the retainer on the day of the contract. The fact that Kim ○○’s agent Kim △△ paid the retainer to the Plaintiff immediately after the formation of the contract in accordance with the above provision is as seen earlier. In light of the legal principles seen earlier, inasmuch as the time when the Plaintiff reverted the income equivalent to the retainer of the instant contract to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

E. Judgment on the assertion that the Defendant did not have the jurisdiction to impose taxes

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

If the apartment house in Nowon-gu was the only address of the plaintiff at the time of the disposition of this case, the defendant is not the chief of tax office having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's address,

2) Determination

A) In a case where there exists an objectively contradictory behavior of a taxpayer, and the behavior was caused by a taxpayer’s severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority caused thereby is worthy of protection, the principle of gold-competence derived from the principle of trust and good faith may also be applied to the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu18383, Mar. 20, 197; Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14865, Apr. 23, 2009). The violation of the principle of trust and good faith or abuse of rights violates compulsory provisions, and the court may determine ex officio the taxpayer’s assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da42129, Dec. 22, 195; 2013Da8829, Mar. 20, 2015).

B) In light of the following circumstances, the above facts of recognition and evidence No. 9, and the record files of this court may be recognized as the result of verification, even if the apartment of Nowon-gu at the time of the disposition of this case was the only address of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion that he did not have the right to impose tax on the defendant for this reason is against the principle of good faith and thus, it is not permissible.

(1) If the apartment house in Nowon-gu was the only address of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s relocation of the resident registration place from Nowon-gu to the female officetel on May 16, 2013 should be deemed to have been false for the purpose of evading the tax payment notice at the point of 15 days before the expiration of the exclusion period for global income tax assessment.

(2) It is because the head of △△ Tax Office notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of taxation data because the Plaintiff’s resident registration address at that time was apartment in Nowon-gu.

(3) However, the head of ○○ Tax Office transferred taxation data to the Defendant without taking the instant disposition, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case was trusted that the Plaintiff, in light of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the domicile domicile to the office of △△△’s office after the notice of the taxation data, was reliance on the Plaintiff’s actual living basis to the office of officetel.

(4) On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to receive a tax payment notice at the time of communicating with the Defendant’s public official, and on May 23, 2013, the Plaintiff merely stated that the Defendant received a tax payment notice at the time of delivery of the first attracting public official in Nowon-gu’s apartment on May 23, 2013, but did not raise any objection that there was no tax jurisdiction for the Defendant because his/her actual address was

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.