The meaning of Article 11 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7-2 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which stipulate the reasons for service by public notice.

Article 11 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998) is amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996, and the period of appeal expires due to a cause not attributable to a taxpayer, even if the period of appeal is expired due to a cause not attributable to a taxpayer, the taxpayer is deprived of an opportunity to object to the tax disposition, etc. Therefore, the right to a trial under Article 27 (1) of the Constitution should be excessively infringed. Thus, Article 7-2 (1) 1 and 2 of the same Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16622 of Dec. 28, 199) should be interpreted to be limited to cases where a taxpayer deserts from the place where the existing service is to be served for a long time and there is an obstacle to the exercise of the authority to impose taxes.

Article 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998); Article 7-2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16622 of Dec. 28, 199); Article 27(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu1453 delivered on October 30, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 11 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same) provides that "where a person prescribed by Article 10 (4) is unable to serve a document at least twice by public notice and such document is returned to the absence of the recipient by registered mail, etc." Article 7-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1662 of Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "where it is deemed difficult to serve a document by public notice because the document was served by registered mail but the recipient was returned to the absence of the recipient and thus it is difficult to do so within the time limit due to the absence of the recipient's right to appeal" under Article 11 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 11 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act provides that "where a person subject to taxation is unable to receive the previous tax payment deadline due to be extended by public notice by 138.

2. Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that the defendant sent a tax notice of this case to the plaintiff's domicile by registered mail on January 21, 1997 (the date of payment of the tax notice of this case on January 31, 1997), which was returned to the plaintiff's domicile on January 27, 1997, and the public official belonging to the defendant was unable to deliver the above tax notice by the plaintiff's absence of the plaintiff's time limit for payment and extended the payment period to February 10, 1997 due to the plaintiff's visit to the above new shares for direct delivery, but the payment period was extended to February 10, 1997, on the premise that Article 11 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is interpreted as including the case where the person to receive the tax is not residing, but merely the case where the person is temporarily absent due to external release, etc., and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, 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 Han-gu (Presiding Justice)