early 2009west0499 (Law No. 29 April 29, 2009)

Whether the right to receive registered mail, etc. is implicitly delegated to the apartment security guard.

In the event of delivery of special postal items, such as ordinary postal items or registered postal items, apartment security guards have received and delivered them to the residents, and residents have not raised any objection to the method of delivery of ordinary special postal items, the power of receipt is implicitly delegated to apartment security guards.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

Article 10 (Method of Service by Letters)

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 KRW 10,177,433 out of the global income tax of KRW 210,90,670 for the year 2002 against the Plaintiff on May 9, 2008 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the representative director of ○○○○○○○○, a corporation in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 37-7 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) established on March 26, 1993, and closed on March 31, 2008.

나. 소외 회사의 소재지를 관할하는 ●●세무서장은 소외 회사가 2001 사업연도에 ★★건설 주식회사로부터 실물거래 없이 공급가액 34,707,000원의 가공세금계산서를 수취하고, 2002 사업연도에 487,269,200원을 매출누락하였음을 이유로 소외 회사에게 법인세를 경정고지하고 위 금액을 대표자에 대한 상여로 소득처분하여 소외 회사에게 소득금액변동통지를 하였고, 소외 회사는 사실상 폐업상태로 지방청 승인 결손처분을 받은 법인으로서 원천징수의무를 이행할 능력이 없다고 판단하고 원고의 주소지를 관할하는 피고에게 과세자료를 통보하였다.

C. On May 9, 2008, the Defendant imposed a notice on the Plaintiff, as the representative director of the non-party company, KRW 12,175,728 of global income tax for the year 2001 and KRW 210,990,679 of global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of KRW 110,177,43 of global income tax for the year 2002, the part on which the Plaintiff seeks revocation, which is the part on which the Plaintiff seeks revocation, was imposed.

D. On October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant. On November 4, 2008, the Defendant dismissed the said objection on the grounds that the said objection was filed after the lapse of the period for request as stipulated under Articles 66(6) and 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the request, filed a petition with the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on January 12, 2009. The National Tax Tribunal decided on April 29, 2009 that the Plaintiff’s request for a trial was in compliance with the period for request, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the merits are groundless.

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

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

Since the Plaintiff was not served on the Plaintiff by May 31, 2008, the imposition disposition of this case is null and void after the exclusion period expires. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case is revoked by the lawsuit of this case, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant filed an objection on October 10, 2008 after the Plaintiff was served on May 9, 2008 and 90 days have passed thereafter, and that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not go through a legitimate pre-trial procedure.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The apartment of the Plaintiff’s residence is managed separately from the registered mail and the ordinary mail, and customarily, the apartment security guards, upon receipt of the registered mail from the mail office carrier, have entered it in front of the registration mail board and sent it to the occupants, and the occupants, including the Plaintiff, did not raise any objection.

(2) The Plaintiff’s address address includes only the Plaintiff’s resident registration, but the number of the vehicle registered in the apartment and the number of the Plaintiff’s children are identical, and the Plaintiff’s family member visits.

(3) The Defendant sent a tax notice of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff by registered mail, and on May 9, 2008, the mailman delivered the notice to Park-won, an apartment security guard, to Park-won, and the said notice was not returned.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff left Korea on November 25, 2007 and entered the Republic of Korea on August 30, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 4, 6, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Administrative litigation seeking revocation of tax disposition shall necessarily undergo a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and in this case, a request for adjudication, etc. shall meet lawful requirements. Thus, if a request for adjudication, etc. is filed after the deadline for request, it shall not be deemed that it

In this case, the issue is whether an objection against the disposition of this case was filed within the due date, and the apartment security guards have received and delivered it to residents in the apartment where special mail, such as ordinary mail or registered mail, is delivered on the apartment in which the taxpayer resides, and the apartment security guards including the taxpayer have not raised any objection with respect to the delivery method of ordinary mail, but the apartment residents, including the taxpayer, have implicitly delegated the right to receive the registration mail, etc. to the apartment security guards (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1164, Jul. 4, 200). Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff implicitly delegated the right to receive the registration mail, etc. to the apartment security guards, which is the apartment security guards, to the Park-won-ri, which is the apartment security guards. Thus, May 9, 2008, when the above apartment security guards received the notice of disposition under Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and even if the plaintiff was staying abroad at the time of the delivery of the notice of tax payment.

However, the Plaintiff filed an objection on October 10, 2008, which is apparent from the date 90 days have elapsed since the notification of the instant disposition was received, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it does not go through legitimate procedures. Therefore, the Defendant’s principal safety defense is with merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, this case is dismissed because it is an incidental law.