Whether a payment notice through apartment security guards is lawful;

In the apartment in which the taxpayer is residing, ordinary mail is inserted in the household mail located near the apartment guard room, the apartment's residents collect it from the above mail, and in the case of special mail such as registered mail, the apartment security guards have delivered the apartment security guards to the resident. If the apartment security guards do not raise any objection with regard to the method of delivery of registered mail, the taxpayer and the residents of the above apartment are deemed to have implicitly delegated the right to receive registered mail to the apartment security guards. Therefore, the apartment security guards' notice of tax payment was received, and the tax notice was served to the taxpayer lawfully.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law Firm 1994Sang, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu22937 delivered on January 21, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was registered as a resident at the time of the disposition of this case, and actually resided in the above domicile at the time of the disposition of this case. In the above apartment, if a general mail is inserted in the household that is located near the apartment guard room, the apartment security guard collects it from the above mail, and in the case of special mail such as registered mail, the apartment security guard has delivered it to the resident. The above apartment resident did not raise any objection regarding the method of delivery of this mail. The defendant sent the notice of this case to the plaintiff's address on February 17, 1995, and the non-party 1, the office clerk of Incheon post office, who received the above notice of this case on February 18, 1995, was not entitled to receive the above tax notice of this case from the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 2, who is the above (the plaintiff's address 1 omitted). The plaintiff's above tax notice of this case cannot be viewed to have been delivered directly to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's above tax notice of this case was not justified.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)