early 2012west 4806 ( December 31, 2012)

Tax authorities are deemed to have served a notice on the national tax information and communications network when the notice is stored.

Since the person to whom the request for electronic notification was made is presumed to have been made, when the tax authority stored the notice in the national tax information and communications network, it is deemed that the disposition was served on the taxpayer and filed a tax appeal after the lapse of 90 days thereafter, the lawsuit filed without going through a legitimate tax trial is also unlawful

2013Gudan1259 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

The director of the tax office.

May 15, 2013

August 21, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax OOOO on May 16, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 28, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 1/4 shares on the O-si O-dong 197-3 and seven parcels, and paid each transfer income tax on January 31, 2007 and on March 16, 2007.

B. The Defendant, on May 16, 2012, notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of 2006, and the transfer of the above shares to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition on October 29, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on the grounds of the filing period limit and the filing period of December 31, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On January 24, 2011, on the website of the National Tax Service, a registration of the Plaintiff’s home address and an application for electronic notification was made, and at this time, the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate was used.” (2) On May 17, 2012, the Defendant notified the instant disposition by storing the content of the instant disposition in the national tax information and communications network in accordance with the aforementioned application for electronic notification, and sending e-mail and cellular phone text to the e-mail address entered at the time of the said application for electronic notification and cell phone number.

[Ground of Recognition] 1, 1 to 5, and 2 of the witness BB, and the whole purport of the pleading

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Where a person to receive a document applies for electronic service by electronic service, the tax authorities may serve documents, such as tax payment notices by electronic service; and where such documents are entered in the electronic mail address designated by the person to receive the document (in cases of storage in national tax information and communications networks, when they are stored), it is deemed that the person to receive the document reaches the person to receive the document (Article 10(1) and (8) and the proviso of Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Meanwhile, an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority is recognized by digital signature under the Digital Signature Act, and the administrative authorities may verify the identity of the civil petitioner, etc. with a certified digital signature created through the authorized certificate (Article 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act, Article 10 of the Electronic Government Act, Article 10 of the Electronic Government Act). In order to protect the identification function, etc. of the authorized certificate, the Digital Signature Act prohibits the person to whom the authorized certificate was issued from using or divulging other's digital signature creation information, and imposes considerable attention to maintaining accurate and complete information associated with the recorded certificate or authorized certificate.

Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the procedure for identification was conducted through the taxpayer's authorized certificate lawfully issued by the licensed certification authority, and that the taxpayer himself/herself or the person duly authorized by him/her applied for electronic notification, barring any special circumstances, and in such cases, the taxpayer is deemed to have received the tax payment notice when the tax authority stored the details of the tax payment notice in the national tax information and communications network.

The administrative litigation on the disposition of the national tax may not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, and the above request for adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known (Article 5(1) and Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

According to the facts found in the instant case, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s person entrusted with the electronic notification application is presumed to have applied for the electronic notification around January 24, 201, and the Defendant’s storage of the instant notification in the national tax information and communications network is deemed to have served on the Plaintiff on May 17, 2012. Therefore, the period for filing a petition for a trial on the instant disposition is to be counted from May 17, 2012 when the date when the notice of the disposition was served. Accordingly, the period for filing a petition for a trial on the said disposition is to be counted from May 29, 2012 when it was filed on October 29, 2012 after the lapse of ninety (90) days from the date when the Plaintiff filed a petition for a tax appeal, which is unlawful, and is unlawful

In this regard, the plaintiff issued the plaintiff's authorized certificate to BB who manages the plaintiff's building for the purpose of being in charge of the bank business, and the BB voluntarily asserted that the BB applied for the electronic notification in the plaintiff's name using the above authorized certificate, but the testimony of the witness BB is insufficient to recognize it, and the above BB is not only a usual plaintiff's bank business but also a tax business, and the plaintiff is not responsible for the unauthorized use of the authorized certificate.

3.In conclusion

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.