Cho Jae-2013-Seoul Government-2151 (Law No. 138, 2013)

Service of a notice of tax payment on a person confined to a correctional institution will be effected at the domicile of that person.

A notice of tax payment to a person confined in a correctional institution shall be served at his/her domicile, except in extenuating circumstances. In such cases, the document shall be served on the person to whom the right to receive mail or other documents are delivered lawfully to the person to whom the document is delivered

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap24280 global income and revocation of such disposition

EO

O Head of tax office

.02.28

2014.28

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 97,791,560 (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on October 15, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 26, 2005 to December 26, 2008, the Plaintiff was in office as a director of OONz (hereinafter “OO”) corporation (hereinafter “OO”).

B. From March 23, 2009 to April 27, 2009, the head of the OO head of the OO conducted a tax investigation on the OO, and he received a tax invoice of KRW 1,791,460,000 from AAAAA (hereinafter referred to as "AAAAA") in the taxable period of the value-added tax for the first year, 2006, for the reason that "OO received a tax invoice of KRW 1,791,460,000 without actual transaction," he denied the input tax deduction and imposed the value-added tax and the corporate tax by denying the input tax deduction and imposing the non-deductible tax, and it is not clear that the ownership of KRW 1,791,460,00 that was the representative of the OO at the time was disposed of as a bonus of KRW 895,730,000 from each other.

C. According to the request for pre-assessment review of IMO, the head of the OO made a re-audit of the actual person to whom the amount of outflow belongs from September 8, 201 to October 17, 2011. The head of the OO made a re-audit of the amount of outflow from September 8, 2011, and the “OO made the forfeited share price of KRW 2 billion at the time of capital increase by capital increase on March 2006, the director, who was an executive officer, borrowed the funds in order to prevent the cancellation of registration on the KOSDAQ due to capital erosion, and received the forfeited share allocation on March 16, 2006, and made the allocation of forfeited share from AAAA in the first taxable period of the value-added tax on January 2006, based on the following reasons: (a) the 1,791,460,000 won was deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff, △△△, and notified the head of the tax office of the income disposal and taxation.

D. On April 18, 2012, the head of △△△ Tax Office notified the Defendant of the taxation data on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s domicile was changed. Accordingly, on October 15, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 97,791,560 (including additional tax) in 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on January 17, 2013. However, on January 24, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that “the period of the claim was exceeded.” The Plaintiff filed an appeal on April 22, 2013, but received a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff on the same ground from the Tax Tribunal on June 28, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 13 (including virtual number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

A tax notice on the instant disposition was served at the Plaintiff’s domicile on October 17, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s DongCC received it. The Plaintiff filed each of the instant lawsuits on January 17, 2013, which was subsequent to the expiration of the period for filing a request for review, on April 22, 2013, and on September 26, 2013, respectively, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful without due process.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 27, 2012, the Defendant served a notice of tax notice on October 15, 2012 and a notice of tax payment on the instant disposition on October 15, 2012 as OO-Gu O-dong 455-14 201 (OO-ro 63201, OO-gu 4, OO-dong 63201) respectively on the Plaintiff’s resident registration.

(2) NCC received each tax notice on September 3, 2012 and each tax notice on October 17, 2012.

(3) On April 12, 2012, the Plaintiff resided in the OOO-gu OOO-dong 490 OO-dong 490 OO apartment 9 809, and was a director of OO-dong 455-14 201 (OO-Gu 63201, OO-ro 6301) and moved-in report to the above domicile. The above domicile had KimD, the spouse of thisCC, was registered.

(4) The KimE, who is a public official in charge of OOtax secretary, was keeping the name cards of ParkF, and related documents state that "the plaintiff is currently in the detention center, and that the document was served on his agent ParkF, and that the document was served on his agent ParkF, and that "the document will be explained by agent ParkF."

On February 10, 2014, this GG, a public official responsible for Defendant, submitted a confirmation letter that “When notice of global income tax was given, the agent ParkF visited the tax office, and the service place of the notice was requested to the Plaintiff’s domicile and the address where the DongCC resides.”

(5) The Plaintiff written a written objection as of January 17, 2013, and written a written appeal as of April 22, 2013, stating the FF as his/her agent.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 14, and 15 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole oral argument

D. Determination

“1) The date when a person becomes aware of the existence of the relevant disposition under Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides for the period for a request for review against a taxation disposition, refers to the date when he/she becomes aware of the existence of such disposition by notification, public announcement, or any other means. However, where a person other than the party to the disposition or a person who is provided for in the statutes to receive a notice of disposition files an objection or a request for review, which is the other party to the taxation disposition, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when he/she is notified of the disposition. On the other hand, there are no special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act and the provisions concerning the service of the Civil Procedure Act in the Framework Act on National Taxes applicable mutatis mutandis to a prison, and the notice of tax payment to the person confined to the prison shall not be deemed to have been served at the place of his/her domicile under Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such case, where a person who is the other party to the taxation disposition has received the relevant document within 90 days after receipt of the lawsuit, 90 days prior to file an administrative disposition.

(2) It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff submitted a report on the change of service place under Article 9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes only with Gap evidence No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s domicile at the time of service of the tax payment notice should be deemed to be “OOO-ro 4,000 O-ro 63201,00,000,000,0000. ② ParkF visited the tax office 2 or 3 times in the process of data processing to deliver the tax payment notice to the Plaintiff at the detention house as his resident registration address and 63201,000 OO-Gu 4,0000,00000,00000,000000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000.

(3) Therefore, an objection filed on January 17, 2013 and a trial request based on it, which was 90 days after the date of service of the tax payment notice, are unlawful, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since it did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.