The case holding that the delivery of a national tax payment notice is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements.

With respect to the national tax notice procedure against Gap who is the representative director of the company and the second taxpayer of the company Gap, the chief of the tax office issued the notice of payment to Eul, who was in flight at the time to Eul, and made Eul deliver the notice of payment to Eul, and made Eul enter the official seal of the representative director of the company concerned, the case holding that the delivery under the above method constitutes the place of delivery and the person to receive the document under Article 8 (1) and Article 10 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements, unless Eul was delegated to receive the document.

Articles 8(1) and 10(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul High Court Decision 200Hun-Ga148 delivered on August 21, 200

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na14894 delivered on April 1, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The facts of the court below as to the notice procedure of the national tax of this case against the non-party 1 (the non-party) who is the second taxpayer of the above corporation as the representative director of the non-party Samsung Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. was confirmed by the court below. The chief of the Suwon District Tax Office under the defendant's jurisdiction issued a notice of payment to the non-party 1 who was the second taxpayer of the above non-party 2, the non-party 2, the above non-party 2, who was the second taxpayer of the above corporation, was absent in the Suwon Tax Office, and the non-party 1, who was under flight at the time, issued a notice of payment to the plaintiff and made the person enter the above non-party 1, and received only the official seal of the representative director of the non-party company. Thus, the delivery of the above method by the non-party 2, unless the non-party 2 was delegated by the authority to receive

The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the service by the above method is invalid, and there is no evidence that the above non-party 2 was entrusted with the authority to receive the service to the non-party (the statement in the No. 5 No. 2 as shown above is deemed to have been rejected by the court below) and that the duty to pay the national tax of this case against the non-party is not specifically confirmed, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)