(a) Method of serving a tax payment notice on persons confined in correctional institutions, etc.;

(b) A case presumed that a tax payment notice sent by registered mail has been served within six months at the domicile of the person liable for tax payment within the same Si;

A. The Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for special provisions such as Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, a written notice for tax payment to a person confined in correctional institutions, etc. shall be served to the person’s domicile pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes unless there are special circumstances.

B. If a tax notice was sent to the domicile of a taxpayer in Incheon by registered mail on January 19, 1988, it is reasonable to view that, in ordinary cases, the above letter-post item can arrive at the domicile of the taxpayer in Incheon within six months at any latest. Thus, it is presumed that the notice was served until July 19 of the same year.

(a) Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8029, 8036 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1182) B. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu183 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1479)

Plaintiff

The Southern People's Republic of China

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5760 delivered on December 5, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

The Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for special provisions such as Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis, so service of documents to persons who are confined to prisons, etc. shall be served to their domiciles pursuant to Article 8(1) of the National Tax Standards Act, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8029,8036, Jun. 27, 1989).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the plaintiff was confined to the prison from December 28, 1987 to August 19, 1988, the court below held that when each of the above tax dispositions was delivered to the defendant, the defendant delivered the tax disposition on January 18, 198 by the non-party, the plaintiff's wife, the plaintiff's wife, and the tax disposition on July 18, 198 can be recognized as having received each of the above tax dispositions on the 19th of the same month, and since there is no counter-proof, the defendant lawfully delivered each of the above tax dispositions to the plaintiff on the 22th of the same month. Further, the period of request for review as to each of the above tax dispositions should be calculated from the date on which each of the above tax dispositions was delivered to the plaintiff's address, and the plaintiff was much much more than the period of request for review as stipulated in Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the lawsuit of this case was dismissed as a legitimate administrative appeal.

In light of the records, the part that the court below recognized that the above notice was served on the plaintiff's wife on July 18, 198 of the same month is just a proof that the above notice was served on the plaintiff's wife on the 19th of the same month, but the Eul evidence No. 8 (special mail receipt) cited by the court below as the material for the delivery of the notice of tax payment on January 18 of the same year was merely a proof that the post office received the postal items to be served by the defendant, and it is erroneous that the above notice was served on January 19 of the same year without any evidence to acknowledge

However, according to the above evidence Nos. 8 and records, it is reasonable to view that the above notice of tax payment can be sent to the plaintiff's domicile by registered mail at the Incheon Post Office on January 19, 19 of the same year, and since the plaintiff's domicile is Incheon, the above ordinary mail can arrive within 6 months at any time. Therefore, it is presumed that the above notice of tax payment by July 18 of the same year until the day when the notice of tax payment by July 18 of the same year was served (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu183, Aug. 18, 1987).

Ultimately, the court below's determination that the above notice of tax payment was lawful for delivery to the plaintiff's domicile, not the prison, is just in accordance with the above-mentioned opinion of the party member, and thus, it is also justifiable to dismiss the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff without lawful administrative appeal procedure by imposing the period of request for examination. Therefore, it is not reasonable to hold the grounds for

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)