Plaintiff

Director of the District Office

May 20, 2014

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan133 decided September 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 94,255,320 (including additional tax of KRW 20,74,697) for the transfer income tax of March 2, 2009 (including additional tax of KRW 20,744,697) for the plaintiff on March 2, 2011 (the purport of the complaint's purport of purport of claim and appeal of appeal is deemed to be erroneous, and thus, the above determination shall be made).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 14, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the Yangcheon-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), and the said real estate was transferred to Nonparty 1’s ownership on the ground of “sale by compulsory auction” on July 10, 2009.

B. On March 2, 2011, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 94,255,320 (including additional tax of KRW 20,74,697) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the year 2009, and served a notice of tax payment by public notice.

C. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on the ground of the lapse of the time limit for filing an objection, and subsequently filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision to dismiss an appeal for adjudication on the ground that the Plaintiff did not go through legitimate procedures for a prior trial.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

The defendant's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case does not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure. Thus, prior to the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion on the merits, the defendant first examines it.

Article 55(1) and (3), Article 61(6), and Article 66(6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da1548, Apr. 1, 2006). In order to file a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a disposition imposing capital gains tax, a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed, and the above request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the existence of the disposition is known, and an objection shall be filed within 90 days after the notification of the decision on the objection is received, and a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the notification of the decision on the objection is received, and an administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days after the notification of the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is received. However, if an objection, request for examination or adjudgment, which is a previous trial procedure,

Meanwhile, according to Articles 8, 10, and 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax payment notice shall be served on the domicile, etc. of the holder of the title deed; a service notice shall be served by delivery, mail, or electronic delivery; and a service by mail may be served on his/her employee, worker, or person living together with the person to receive the service at the place to be served, if the service by mail is not carried out by the person to be served at the place to be served, and in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as where the service by registered mail was not made by the person to be served, or his/her employee, worker, or person living together with the person to be served at the place to make reasonable judgment, and where the service by registered mail was returned at the place to be served by the addressee’s absence, etc. In addition, Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that where it is difficult for the recipient to serve the service by registered mail on at least two occasions, and where a tax official visited the taxpayer to deliver the document, but it is difficult to do so within each due date.

As such, service by public notice system is applied equally to all taxpayers, it is natural that the service by public notice system is applied to the plaintiff, as it is aimed at promoting equity between the taxpayer who is well served on his resident registration and the taxpayer who is not well-known.

Therefore, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant sent a tax notice related to the instant disposition to the Plaintiff’s address by registered mail after March 2, 2011; (b) the Defendant attempted to deliver it to the Plaintiff’s address on May 6, 201 and May 9, 201; (c) the Defendant failed to send it to the Plaintiff’s address as the addressee’s absence; and (d) the Defendant can be recognized that the service became effective by serving a tax notice on May 19, 201 by serving a tax notice on May 19, 201 to the effect that the service became effective on June 2, 2011 by serving the same as the Defendant’s witness Nonparty 2.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed an objection, a request for adjudication, or a request for examination within 90 days from the date the notice of the disposition of this case became effective by public notice as above. However, the plaintiff's objection and a request for adjudication are filed at an obvious time that the 90-day period for objection has elapsed since the plaintiff's objection and a request for adjudication were raised at an obvious time after such service by public notice became effective. Thus, the lawsuit of this case based on this is illegal since the lawsuit of this case has not gone through legitimate procedure of the previous trial, and it is not proper without examining the legitimacy of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)