Whether or not the period of appeal by public notice is expired;

The provisions concerning filing an objection and the period for filing a request for examination shall not be applied because it is illegal to serve a return notice by public notice without verifying whether a taxpayer resides, such as on-site investigation, and it is invalid.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 4,787,640 on May 5, 2003 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The disposition is as shown in the Disposition (However, the plaintiff's revised claim on March 20, 207, which was the date of disposition, seems to be a clerical error on May 31, 2003, among the amended claims on March 20, 2007.).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2002, the Plaintiff registered the business of “○○ Computer” (the business registration number: ○○-○-○○○○○) with the Defendant as a type of business selling the computer wholesale and retail business.

On the above business registration certificate, the address of the plaintiff is ○○-si ○○-dong 341-1, ○○-dong ○○-dong 537-6 ○○-dong 312.

On January 16, 2003, the Plaintiff reported the closure of business.

B. On May 5, 2003, the Defendant: (a) imposed value-added tax of KRW 4,787,640 for the second term of 202 on the Plaintiff in relation to the business of ○ Computer (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (b) sent a tax payment notice (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”) by registered mail at ○○○-dong 342-36, ○○-gu, 342-36, the Plaintiff’s domicile; and (b) the said tax payment notice was returned on May 14, 2003 due to the domicile of the addressee.

C. Accordingly, on May 20, 2003, the Defendant served the instant tax payment notice on the ground that the Plaintiff’s seat is unclear and thus the normal service of the tax payment notice is impossible.

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on October 4, 2006, but the objection was dismissed on October 17, 2006 on the ground that the period for filing the objection was elapsed. On November 9, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 20, 2006, but the request for examination was dismissed on the ground that the period for filing the request was expired.

(In fact that there is no dispute over the facts, Gap 2, Eul 1-2, Eul 2, and Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Even if the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s domicile directly, it is unlawful to deliver the instant tax payment notice to the Plaintiff without taking such measures despite having been able to deliver the instant tax payment notice to the Plaintiff. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff lent the Plaintiff’s name to Nonparty ○○, and operated the Plaintiff’s name. Since the Plaintiff did not participate in the operation of ○ Computer, the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff regarding the business of ○○ Computer was unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The instant lawsuit is inappropriate as filed since 90 days from June 5, 200, which was deemed to have arrived at the Plaintiff by means of service by public notice.

3. Determination

A. Order of determination

The Defendant’s assertion asserted that the service by public notice of the instant duty payment was unlawful is identical to the Defendant’s defense of safety. As such, first of all, the Defendant’s defense of safety and the Plaintiff’s claim should be examined as to whether the service by public notice of the instant duty payment was legitimate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On June 14, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report for resident registration with ○○-dong 342-36, ○○-gu, ○○-si, ○○○-dong, and transferred the move-in report at the address above around October 17, 2003.

(2) ○○○-si ○○○-dong 342-36, ○○-dong 342-36, which was a second floor, and the first floor was used as a protein restaurant, and the second floor was used as a Hop and the ○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

(3) From August 4, 200 to November 2, 2002, Kim ○○ operated the instant singing room. The Plaintiff had been residing in the singing room with the intent of the said singing room. Even after the closure of the singing room, the Plaintiff, who did not put a building into a singing room, was living in the said singing room until October 16, 2003.

Each entry in A, A4, A7, and B 1-1, witness Kim ○, and the purport of the whole pleadings (applicable to recognition)

D. Determination

(1) Grounds for service by public notice under the Framework Act on National Taxes

(A) Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides three cases where the service of documents under tax laws, such as tax payment notices, is made abroad and their address or place of business is difficult to be made by public notice (Article 11(1)); (2) where the address or place of business is unclear (Article 2(1)2); and (3) where the person under Article 10(4) of the Act provides three cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 11(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") such as the case where the documents are delivered by registered mail of the association; and (4) where it is difficult to serve documents within the payment period due to the absence of the recipient's address or place of business after the person under Article 11(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 11(1)1 of the Act); and (2) where a tax official visited the taxpayer at least two times to deliver documents, and it is difficult to serve within the payment period (Article 2(2).

(B) Return to the instant case and the reason for Article 11(1)1 of the Act cannot be applied to the instant case. On the other hand, since the reason for failure to serve a tax notice of the instant case sent by registered mail was recognized in Paragraph 1, the term "unclaimed" refers to the absence of the recipient (the absence of the recipient of the tax notice is limited to the case where the taxpayer deserts for a long time from the place where the tax payment was to be served, and there is an obstacle to the exercise of the right to impose taxes) (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du18916 delivered on October 6, 200), Article 11(1)3 of the Act and Article 7-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act are not applicable to the instant case.

(C) However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged in paragraphs (1) and 3(c), i.e., (i) at the time of the issuance of the instant tax payment notice, the ○ Computer was already in a closed-down condition; (ii) the Plaintiff’s address stated in the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate was the same; and (iii) the instant tax payment notice was returned by registered mail as the Plaintiff’s address on the ground of “unresident’s address”, the instant case constitutes “where the address or the place of business is unclear” under Article 11(1)2 of the Act.

However, in this case, it may be problematic whether the defendant, who is the tax authority, is legitimate to make a service by public notice without going through any particular procedure on the ground that the tax notice of this case was returned due to the reason of "unresident

(2) The tax authority's duty to investigate regarding the service of a tax payment notice by service.

(A) "Where the address or place of business, which is the reason for service by public notice under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Act, is unclear" means where the tax authority investigates the address or place of business of a person to be served with due care as a good manager, but its address or place of business is unknown (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17575, Jun. 12, 1998).

Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, the burden of proving whether service by public notice by public notice by public notice by tax authorities is legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4134, Oct. 14, 1994).

(B) Return to the instant case and the facts acknowledged in Paragraph (1) are acknowledged only to the effect that the Defendant returned the instant pressure tax notice sent by registered mail to the Plaintiff’s address indicated on the Plaintiff’s registration certificate due to the cause of “unresident’s residence,” and further, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, upon confirmation of the Plaintiff’s resident registration card, either ex officio cancellation of the Plaintiff’s resident registration card, or that the Defendant’s employee made efforts to directly visit the Plaintiff’s address to inquire about whether the Plaintiff’s residence.

Rather, according to the paper evidence No. 2 (written reasons for non-service impossibility), the defendant appears to have failed to re-examine the plaintiff's domicile after the tax notice was returned. Meanwhile, the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged in No. 3 and paragraph, namely, ① since the plaintiff resided in the second floor singing room in ○○○-dong 341-36, ○○-dong 346, the plaintiff's domicile at the time when the tax notice of this case was returned, it would have been possible to confirm the plaintiff's residence if the defendant visited the above domicile. ② The above building is the second floor commercial building, and ② the post office employee who delivered the tax notice of this case as the second floor commercial building, could have judged that the defendant did not confirm the plaintiff's residence as at the time of the on-site investigation.

(C) According to the relevant laws and regulations and facts in the instant case, the Defendant, who is the tax authority, conducted a survey of the Plaintiff’s address with due care as a good manager, but did not constitute a ground for service by public notice under Article 11(1)2 of the Act. Thus, the service by public notice in the instant case is inappropriate.

(3) Sub-decisions

(A) Since the service by public notice of the instant tax payment notice is inappropriate, it is null and void as the instant disposition, which is a tax disposition, does not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu332, May 9, 1984).

(B) Furthermore, as long as the disposition of this case is null and void, there is no room to apply the provisions on the period of filing an objection and the request for review to the disposition of this case, and even if the plaintiff's filing of an objection and the request for review against the disposition of this case were dismissed for the reason of the high time, the plaintiff shall be deemed to lawfully go through the procedure of the previous trial in the filing of the lawsuit of this case. In addition, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case within 90 days from the date when the decision on the request for review against the disposition of this case

(C) Meanwhile, since the delivery of the instant tax payment notice is unlawful and thus the instant disposition is null and void, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant tax payment notice is without merit to examine further on other issues.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

official training laws and regulations;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 8. ① Service of documents under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be made to the address, residence, place of business or office [in the case of service by means of information and communications networks (hereinafter referred to as "electronic service"), referring to electronic mail address (in the case of storage in national tax information and communications networks, referring to any place accessible by means of using an identification mark of the holder of a title deed; hereinafter referred to as "domicile or place of business"] of the holder of the title deed (referring to the person designated as the recipient of

Article 11 (Service by Publication) (i) In case a person liable to receive documents falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the service of documents pursuant to Article 8 shall be deemed to have been made 14 days after the abstract of documents were publicly announced:

1. Where the domicile or business office is located overseas and such service is difficult;

2. Where his domicile or business office is not evident; and

3. Where the person as prescribed in Article 10 (4) fails to serve a document at a place where the document is to be served, and such document is sent by registered mail but returned because of the addressee’s absence

【Enforcement Decree of Framework Act on National Taxes

The term “cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 7-2 (1) 3 of the Service by Public Notice Act means the cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where it is difficult to serve a document by the time limit for payment because the document served by registered mail was returned due to the addressee’s absence; and

2. Where it is difficult to serve a document by the time limit for payment due to the addressee’s absence, for all that a tax official visited the taxpayer two or more times to deliver the document.