Whether service by public notice can be made on the grounds of rejection of a written notice of tax assessment (negative)

Articles 10(4) and 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782 of Dec. 18, 2002)

Plaintiff

Busan District Court Decision 2001Na14488 delivered on May 2, 201

Supreme Court Decision 2000Du86 Delivered on December 14, 2001

Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5686 Delivered on February 10, 2006

Busan High Court Decision 2006Nu1265 decided September 29, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the defendant revoked the previous disposition ex officio on March 5, 2002 in accordance with the purport of the first judgment of remanding the case, and the plaintiff submitted an amendment to the purport of the second disposition of this case to the court below after remanding the first claim for revocation as a preliminary claim on June 14, 2002 (hereinafter "revision to the claim of this case"). The defendant sent the notice of second disposition of this case to the plaintiff's domicile, but the notice of second disposition of this case was sent to the plaintiff's domicile, but was not sent as a rejection by mail, but as a result of the refusal to receive the second disposition of this case, service by publication was promptly served on March 16, 2002.

However, the rejection of receipt may serve as a ground for the service by public notice under the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782 of Dec. 18, 2002), but it cannot serve as a ground for service by public notice (see Articles 10(4) and 11(1)). Moreover, it is unclear whether the rejection of receipt of the instant case was rejected at the time of the instant lawsuit, and it cannot be viewed as a case where the Plaintiff’s address or place of business is unclear as long as the instant lawsuit was pending at the time of the instant lawsuit, and therefore, the instant service by public notice cannot be deemed lawful. Accordingly, there is no evidence to readily conclude that the Plaintiff changed the instant claim after the lapse of 60 days from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the instant re-disposition.

The court below is justified in its conclusion in rejecting the defendant's defense of safety that the modification of the claim of this case was made 60 days after the date when it became aware of the re-disposition of this case, and is unlawful. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)