(a) The case holding that a tax authority's notice of tax payment sent to a taxpayer's registered domicile can not be deemed a lawful service, if the taxpayer's registered domicile was received with the knowledge of the director's and the actual domicile;

(b) Validity of Article 72 (3) 8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigations (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980 on January 26, 1987)

(a) The case holding that a tax authority's notice of tax payment sent to a taxpayer's registered domicile can not be deemed a lawful service, if the taxpayer's registered domicile was received with the knowledge of the director's or actual domicile of the taxpayer;

B. Article 72(3)8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation, amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 on January 26, 1987, does not specify the criteria to identify whether a trader is a speculative trader, and where a trader is deemed an speculative trader based on a subjective judgment by the tax authority, the tax authority’s arbitrary discretion is allowed in determining whether the transfer or acquisition value is based on the standard market price by deeming the transfer or acquisition value to be based on the actual transaction price. On the other hand, a provision which prevents a taxpayer from predicting the excess tax to be imposed on him before the disposition of transfer income tax is null and void.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 72(3)8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980 on January 26, 1987)

B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Nu3768 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1824) 90Nu5238 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 263) 92Nu6983 delivered on January 19, 193 (Gong1993,756)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 91Gu1227 delivered on December 9, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff registered and resided as the resident on August 25, 1976 ( Address 1 omitted), and the plaintiff sold the land and the building on the ground around August 1987 and moved as the resident registration at the port ( Address 2 omitted) but did not move the resident registration, and reported the change of the address that requested the delivery of mail to the port post office around October of the same year. However, the public official of the Daegu regional tax office who conducted tax investigation for the purpose of imposing the tax disposition against the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was the director, and the defendant knew of this fact, the tax disposition of this case was sent to the plaintiff on September 4, 1990, and it was hard to find that the defendant did not receive the above registered domicile from the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had received the above registered domicile as the resident registration address and delivered it to the non-party 1 as the director's residence. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's notification of tax disposition.

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 (resident registration card by household) of the above non-party 1's head of the above non-party 1 as non-party 2, although the plaintiff and the non-party 1 had the same resident registration place, they were different households. The whole of his household including the plaintiff and his non-party 1 and his household members including the above non-party 1 were reported to the United States on February 19, 198, and according to the evidence Nos. 2-9 (Investigation Report) at the time of investigation of Jun. 1, 1990, the plaintiff can be seen that the real estate rental business registration (registration number omitted) has already been made at the time of the tax investigation of Jun. 1, 1990. In light of this, the judgment of the court below is justified.

The precedents cited as arguments (Supreme Court Decision 84Nu195 delivered on October 10, 1984) are not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

Article 72 (3) 8 of the Regulations on the Conduct of Property Tax Investigation, amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 on January 26, 1987, does not specify the criteria for identifying whether a trader is an speculative trader, but if a trader is deemed an speculative trader based on a subjective judgment of the tax authority, the tax authority’s arbitrary discretion is allowed in determining whether the transfer value is based on the standard market price by deeming the transfer or acquisition value to be based on the actual transaction price. On the other hand, a taxpayer is unable to predict the excess amount to be imposed on himself before the disposition of transfer income tax is imposed on him, and thus, it violates the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu8149, May 8, 1990; 90Nu3768, Jul. 27, 199). Accordingly, the imposition of transfer income tax cannot be made on the grounds of this provision.

Therefore, in the above purport, the court below's decision that the tax disposition of this case was unlawful is just, and there is no reason to prosecute the judgment below on the premise that the above provision is valid.

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 on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)