As of the date of receipt by apartment security guards, the period of filing shall be calculated.

If it is reasonable to deem that the apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive registered mail, etc. to the apartment security guards, it shall be deemed that the apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail, etc. on the date when the notice for tax payment is received from the mail office security guards.

Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Guhap5016 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

literatureA

YThe director of the tax office

October 15, 2015

November 19, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including penalty tax) against the Plaintiff on June 11, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate jointly with Nonparty BB, the Plaintiff’s female student, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 25, 2000, by acquiring the instant real estate on a total of KRW 5,800,000,000,000, and KRW 7,000,000,000, and KRW 5,80,000,000.

B. As a result of the investigation into the Plaintiff’s source of funds for acquiring real estate of this case, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff was donated to Nonparty 1, which was the Plaintiff’s father, with the real estate acquisition funds of this case, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000 (including additional tax) gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on June 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the pertinent tax notice “tax payment notice”).

C. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (hereinafter “instant request for examination”). However, on January 20, 2015, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the instant request for examination on the ground that the period for request under Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has expired.

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

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion

On June 13, 2014, the Defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to the Plaintiff’s domicile [Seoul 00-Gu 00, 397, 303 (Seoul 00-Gu 00, u300 - hereinafter “instant apartment 303”). Nonparty DD received the instant tax payment notice on June 16, 2014, and Nonparty EE, who is the Plaintiff’s father, sought the instant tax payment notice on the same day. Thus, the instant tax payment request was filed after the lapse of 90 days from June 16, 2014, and the instant lawsuit should be dismissed.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which sets the period for a request for review on a taxation, refers to the date when a person, other than the party to the disposition or a person who is provided for by the statutes, becomes aware of the fact that the relevant disposition was made by notification, public announcement, or any other means. However, if a person, other than the party to the disposition or a person who is provided for by the statutes, raises an objection or makes a request for review, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the notice of the disposition is received. If a person to receive documents, such as a taxpayer, etc., who is the other party to the disposition, has expressly or explicitly delegated the right to receive mail or other documents to another person, the delegated person shall be deemed to have received the relevant documents, and

In the apartment where special mail, such as ordinary mail, registered mail, etc., is delivered to a taxpayer, the apartment security guards have received and delivered it to the resident. Accordingly, if apartment residents, including the taxpayer, raise any objection with respect to the method of delivering ordinary mail, it is reasonable to deem that apartment security guards have implicitly delegated the right to receive registration mail, etc. to the apartment security guards. Therefore, apartment security guards are deemed to have received notice of disposition as provided by Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1164, Jul. 4, 200).

2) In the instant case:

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 3.

① On June 12, 2014, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to 303 apartment units, which are the Plaintiff’s domicile, by registered mail.

② In the apartment of this case, the security guards receive postal items or door-to-door shipments when the ordinary residents arrive at the space, and put them on each unit of the first floor, and the residents who confirmed the same shall be in charge of postal and door-to-door sales by means of preparing the acceptance time and the recipient and searching the relevant postal items or door-to-door sales box.

③ In the instant tax payment notice, Nonparty FF received and kept Nonparty DD, a security guard, around 14:00 on June 16, 2014, when Nonparty FF delivered the instant apartment, which is the cause of the instant tax payment notice, around 14:20 on the same day, and Nonparty E EE visited the security room of the Plaintiff, and visited Nonparty EE, a guardian, to find it.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the residents of the apartment of this case, including the plaintiff, have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registered mail, etc. to the apartment security guards, and it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, and Gap evidence 5-7.

Therefore, on June 16, 2014, the apartment security guards, received the instant tax payment notice from the mailman, fall under the date on which the notice of disposition prescribed in Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes was received. The instant petition for review filed on September 18, 201 after the lapse of 90 days from the said date cannot be deemed unlawful as the lapse of the period, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not go through lawful pre-trial procedures.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.