Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap58948 ( December 23, 2014)

The service of a notice to a person detained in a detention house, etc. is lawful because the notice is served to his/her domicile, residence, place of business or office, except in extenuating circumstances.

The Framework Act on National Taxes does not include special provisions such as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act (Service on Detained Persons, etc.) or provisions concerning service of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, a written notice of tax payment to a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served to the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office pursuant to Article 8

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

2015Nu3306 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

1. AA Industry Development Co., Ltd. 2.B

00. Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap58948 decided December 23, 2014

May 27, 2015

June 17, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of each of the dispositions of each of the following cases (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions of each of the following cases") taken against the plaintiff AA Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Co., Ltd.") in 2009 on September 2012, 209: value-added tax OOOO, corporate tax OOOO, VATOO for the business year 2009, value-added tax for the first period of January 2010, 2010, OOOO for the business year 209, corporate tax for the second period (the "the head of each office and the petition of appeal" seem to be a clerical error), OO for the business year 2009, OOOO for the business year 209, OOO for the first period of January 20, 2010, OOOOO for the business year 2010.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the additional determination under the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

At the trial of the party, the plaintiffs asserted that the service of the plaintiff company's employees or non-family members was invalid even though they could not receive each notice of tax payment for the first term of 2010, corporate tax for the 2010, corporate tax for the 2010, corporate tax for the 2010, corporate tax for the 2010, and corporate tax for the 2010.

On the other hand, a notice of tax payment for a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served to his/her address, residence, place of business or office pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless there are special circumstances, unless there exist any provisions applicable mutatis mutandis under the same special provisions as Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions concerning service under the Civil Procedure Act, and a notice of tax payment for the person detained in a detention house, etc. may be served to his/her employee and other employees or a person living together with the mental capacity to make reasonable judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 3 and 4 through 6 (including each number), Plaintiff B was detained on July 25, 201, and was detained in Seoul detention center until July 24, 2012. Each of the above tax notice can be recognized that the notice was served on Plaintiff B’s 'O-Gu O-dong 898-21 OO 101', who is the resident of the Plaintiff BB’s resident registration, with the elderly Round, who is a live person. In light of the above legal principles, unless the Plaintiffs prove that they did not have the right to receive the above tax notice, each of the above tax notice was served lawfully.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.