Service by public notice which failed to endeavor to serve is illegal;

If service is not attempted at each place in which service is to be made, service by public notice on the basis thereof is illegal, if the service is not attempted.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and service by public notice

2015 Gohap30. Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

The lawsuit asserts that it is unlawful.

In the case of imposition on September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff shall be served on September 25, 2012.

As seen earlier, the appeal was filed after the lapse of 90 days from that date.

Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Tribunal which rejected the request for a judgment is justifiable, and the part which seeks the revocation of the above disposition among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful without due process of a prior trial.

However, each tax notice of this case pertaining to the imposition on December 1, 2013 is later stated.

As such, there is a defect in the procedure of service by publication and the plaintiff has the effect of service by publication.

On January 6, 2014, each of the above tax payment notices was served on January 6, 2014, and thereafter, the plaintiff was actually paid.

No later than 90 days after receipt of the notice of tax notice, the petition for a trial filed on March 2014

It cannot be deemed unlawful. Accordingly, the Tax Tribunal which rejected this part of the appeal.

The decision is unfair, and the part seeking the revocation of each of the above dispositions among the lawsuits of this case is legitimate.

This part of the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

3. Determination on the lawfulness of the imposition disposition of each value-added tax on December 1, 2013

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for service by publication under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(2) The service cannot be deemed to have been duly served.

2) The money that the Plaintiff received from 00 in return for the service is 00,000.

substitute expenses such as road user fees on behalf of 00 in the course of performing affairs related to each contract.

It is nothing more than one thing, so it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's sale constitutes the plaintiff's sale.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes for reasons for tax payment by public notice by the tax authority.

"Place of service" referred to in subparagraph 3 means that the tax authority investigates with the care of a good manager.

of the taxpayer's address or place of business that may be known, and there are several "place of service" for the taxpayer

Then, the delivery may be attempted at each place, but registered only at some of them.

(1) In the case of service or visit of the recipient, the recipient is confirmed to be absent, the National Tax Act

Article 7-2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7-2 (1) or 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act

service by public notice shall not constitute a case of service by public notice.

Pursuant to the purport of the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 9 and the whole pleadings, each of the tax payment of this case by the defendant

Notice by public notice shall be the address or place of business of the plaintiff at the time of service by public notice, '00 :00 :00 :

It seems that there was sufficient understanding that there was 00,000 00 '000 '000 '000 '0000 ' and 000 '00 '00 ')'. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant sent a registered mail to the above place prior to service by public notice or that the tax official visited the above place two or more times. Accordingly, service by public notice of each of the above cases is illegal because the service by public notice of each of the above cases is not in conformity with the requirements prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes and thus, the service by public notice of each of the above cases becomes null and void.

4. Conclusion

If so, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax 2,649,180 won for the second term of 207 among the lawsuit of this case is revoked.

The part of the Gu is illegal and dismissed, and the remainder of the claim is accepted as it is reasonable (the plaintiff has sought).

of this chapter, the court has rendered a judgment revoking the invalidation in a manner that declares the invalidation thereof).

KoreaA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

May 10, 2015

June 28, 2016

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim filed for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,649,180 for the second period of September 20, 2012 among the instant lawsuit is dismissed. 2. On December 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked each of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 39,730,000 for the first period of December 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff, and value-added tax of KRW 20,971,160 for the second period of February 208.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The imposition of value-added tax of 2,649,180 won for the second term of 207 on September 20, 2012 against the Plaintiff and the imposition of value-added tax of 39,730,000 won for the first term of 208 on December 1, 2013, and the imposition of value-added tax of 20,971,160 won for the second term of 208 on December 1, 2013 shall be revoked in all.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2007 to 2008, the Defendant: (a) received a total of KRW 355,600,000 in return for the purchase and sale contract for real estate owned by thisA; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff was omitted from sales at the time of filing a value-added tax return; (c) on September 20, 2012, the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions imposing value-added tax of KRW 2,649,180 on the Plaintiff on KRW 39,730,000 for the first term of December 1, 2003; and (d) on KRW 20,971,160 for the second term of February 2008 to 30,000 for each of the instant tax payment notices issued to the Plaintiff on September 25, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “30,000 for each of the instant tax payment notices”). However, on September 1, 2013, each of the instant tax payment notices issued to the Plaintiff on KRW 30130.

D. The Plaintiff received each of the instant dispositions from the Defendant on March 1, 2014, and thereafter filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 11, 2014. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 15, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the deadline for filing the appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Evidence A No. 19-1, 2, Evidence B No. 1, 2, 3, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The Defendant did not lawfully undergo the pre-trial procedure prior to filing the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff.