The early high-2013west-3349

If a person does not reside in his/her domicile after departure from the Republic of Korea, whether a tax notice can be deemed to have been served lawfully on the householder of his/her domicile on his/her resident registration;

It is reasonable to view that the local tax payment notice, etc. after departure was paid by the due date, and that the authority to receive postal items was delegated to BB, the householder of the domicile in the resident registration, and therefore, if the tax payment notice is served to BB, it is the same as the legitimate delivery to the Plaintiff.

2015Guhap60020 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

○ ○

△△ Head of Tax Office

November 5, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 9, 2012, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of securities transaction tax of KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000 on December 2000 against the Plaintiff on May 9, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, from October 29, 2001 to November 13, 2001, notified the Defendant that he did not report capital gains tax even if the Plaintiff transferred 000 won of shares issued by YU, an unlisted corporation, to 00 won on two occasions on March 26, 200 and December 26, 200.

B. Accordingly, on May 9, 2002, the Defendant rendered a decision on KRW 000 of the capital gains tax, KRW 000 of the securities transaction tax on March 2000, and KRW 000 of the securities transaction tax on December 2000 (the above notice is legitimate or not more than the following 2.2. The above disposition of the capital gains tax is referred to as the "disposition", and the notice of tax payment on the disposition of this case is referred to as the "tax payment notice of this case").

C. On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the grounds that he/she had been aware of the instant disposition in relation to his/her residing in a foreign country for a long time, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request for a trial on September 5, 2014 on the ground that the period of request for a trial on the instant disposition has already expired.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Although the Plaintiff was in the state of departure from Korea before and after the delivery of the instant tax payment notice, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report to the domicile of Nonparty CCC on March 6, 2002 and received the tax payment notice, etc. as the above domicile. Since the instant tax payment notice was served to the above domicile on May 9, 2002, the Plaintiff ultimately received the instant tax payment notice through CCC. Therefore, the period for filing a petition for trial on the instant disposition has expired for a long time, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have undergone lawful pre-trial procedure, and thus, the instant lawsuit should be dismissed as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) According to the integrated national tax computer network data and the comprehensive assessment statement of local taxes stored in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to "Seoul Gangdong-dong 670 Simdong 9 Dong-dong 505, Gangdong-gu, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, which is the plaintiff's resident registration address on May 9, 2002, but specific evidence related to delivery was entirely discarded after the preservation period.

2) The Plaintiff and Nonparty AA, his wife, have left the Republic of Korea for the following period.

AA

From November 24, 2001 to November 28, 2012

From March 15, 2002 to October 12, 2011

3) On March 6, 2002, the Plaintiff and AAA had completed the move-in report to the domicile of CCC, the Plaintiff’s wife, and thereafter maintained the resident registration at the same domicile as CCC until June 26, 2008 (excluding the period from March 4, 2003 to March 21, 2003; hereinafter “the departure period of this case”). The details are as follows.

No.

Period

Address

1

From March 6, 2002 to March 3, 2003

Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000 Sim Young apartment 0, 505

2

From March 22, 2003 to October 26, 2003

As above,

3

From October 27, 2003 to March 6, 2005

Seoul Metropolitan City 00 000 00 1,000 1,405

4

From March 7, 2005 to July 19, 2005

L. 347 P.C. 1, 000 P. 1302

5

From July 20, 2005 to June 26, 2008

L. 343-1 V. 1, 000 1405

4) During the departure period of the instant case, a local tax payment notice for literature hee was served at the domicile of CCC, and the said local tax was fully paid at the time of service. The details are as follows.

A) Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Payment Notice

List of Tax Items

Taxation Year:

Total Amount of Tax

Address of Service

Registration tax (real estate)

December 2, 2006

0,000 won

Seoul Metropolitan City 00 000 00 1,000 1,405

Acquisition tax (real estate)

December 2, 2006

0,000 won

As above,

Property tax (house)

207.7

0,000 won

As above,

Property tax (house)

207.9

0,000 won

As above,

B) Gwangju City tax notice

List of Tax Items

Date of Notice

Total Amount of Tax

Address of Service

o)acquisition tax (real estate)

September 16, 2004

0,000 won

Seoul Metropolitan City 00 000 00 1,000 1,405

Registration tax (real estate)

September 16, 2004

0,000 won

As above,

o)property tax (housing)

July 8, 2005

0,000 won

L. 347 P.C. 1, 000 P. 1302

o)property tax (housing)

September 5, 2005

0,000 won

As above,

o)property tax (housing)

5, 2006

0,000 won

Dong-ri 343-1

o)property tax (housing)

99.11, 206

0,000 won

As above,

o)property tax (housing)

July 7, 2007

0,000 won

L. 343-1 V. 1, 000 1405

o)property tax (housing)

6, 2007.99

0,000 won

As above,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-6, Eul evidence 15-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(i)Delegation of authority to receive postal items;

In cases where a person to receive documents, such as a person liable for duty payment, who is the other party to a taxation, has expressly or explicitly delegated the right to receive mail or other documents to another person, such delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully served the documents on the person to receive the documents, and the delegated person shall not necessarily be deemed to have been an employee of the delegating person or a person living together (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du164, Jul. 4, 200).

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff delegated the payment notice of national taxes and local taxes during the departure period of the instant case to CCC, where the Plaintiff left Korea to a foreign country for a long time and completed the moving-in report of family members including the Plaintiff, at the Plaintiff’s address of CCC, and accordingly, the payment notice of local taxes on Dominhee was served to CCC’s address. As a result, CCC received without objection, and the said local taxes were fully paid at that time.

Therefore, if the instant tax notice was served to CCC, it has the same effect as the lawful delivery to the Plaintiff.

2) Delivery of registered mail

Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that a notice of tax payment shall be served by registered mail. Furthermore, in cases where a postal item is sent by means of registration, barring special circumstances such as return, etc., it shall be deemed that a notice of tax payment has been delivered to an addressee at that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, the above facts revealed as follows: (a) the Defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to 00 ○○ apartment 000 Dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul on May 9, 2002, which is the domicile of cCC, to 000 Dong-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul; and (b) the data that can directly verify the specific method and receipt of the instant tax payment notice, etc. are no longer remaining as the preservation period expires; (c) however, in light of Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, when the instant tax payment notice was enforced at the time of the delivery of the instant tax payment notice, the instant tax payment notice is deemed to have been sent by registered mail; and (d) in such case, the instant tax payment notice was delivered to cCC around May 9, 202

Considering that CCC had legitimate authority to receive the instant tax payment notice, etc. as seen earlier, the instant tax payment notice was lawfully delivered to the Plaintiff through CCC around May 9, 2002.

(iii) the lapse of the period of appeal

Article 68(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a petition for a trial on a tax disposition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the disposition. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received the notice of the instant tax payment on May 9, 2002 and filed a petition for a trial on the instant disposition only on June 19, 2014 after the ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the notice of the disposition. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawful procedure for a prior trial (request for trial, etc.)

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

partnership.