Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap61194 ( October 17, 2015)

Service by public notice and delivery procedure shall be valid.

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is a serious and apparent defect in the disposition imposing capital gains tax is without merit, and all procedural requirements, such as service by public notice, are satisfied, and it is difficult to evaluate that the major contents of the disposition are omitted, and the service of the global income tax notice is valid.

Article 11 (Service by Public Notice)

2015Nu42666. Invalidity, etc. of a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax

HAA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap61194 decided April 17, 2015

November 18, 2015

December 16, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. In the first instance court, the Defendant confirms that the imposition of OOOOO on the Plaintiff on November 1, 201 as of November 1, 201 and the imposition of OOOOOOO on the global income tax for the year 2009 as of March 15, 2013 are invalid. In the first instance, the Defendant’s imposition of OOOOO on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance except for additional judgments as referred to in Paragraph (2). Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that service by public notice is illegal, since the plaintiff's failure to perform his/her duty to detect the plaintiff's address or place of business due to service by public notice is not clearly distinguished from the case where the address or place of business is not clear (hereinafter referred to as "refluence of address").

However, according to the provisions of Article 11(1)2 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Articles 7 and 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, there are clear differences between the name of address poor and the reason for the absence of the recipient by public notice, and the requirements for service by public notice by public notice by each reason is determined. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the requirements for the above

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.