Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap1251 ( October 8, 2014)

When the delivery of the order to correct the stamp of this case becomes impossible due to the addressee's unknown whereabouts after the issuance of the order to correct the stamp of this case, it is unlawful for the delivery by registered mail

The delivery of the order to correct the stamp of this case by registered mail is unlawful, and thus, the lawsuit of this case cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-performance of the order to correct the stamp of this case.

2014Nu70527 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Inheritance Tax, etc.

GaA et al.

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap12451 decided October 8, 2014

May 1, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The case is remanded to the Seoul Administrative Court.

1. Purport of claim

On April 16, 2014, the Defendant revoked each imposition of ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○, each of which was made against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are clear on the records.

A. On August 6, 2014, the presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order of correction ordering the Plaintiffs to pay the unpaid stamp ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant order of correction of stamp”) within five days from the date of receipt of the written notice (hereinafter “instant order of correction of stamp”).

B. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' addresses in the complaint of this case ○-○○○, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (e.g., ○-○)

D. The court of first instance entered as the address of this case, and on July 14, 2014, the court of first instance stated as the plaintiffs.

On July 18, 2014, a certified copy of the order to prepare for name sent to the address is served on July 18, 2014, and the instant warden was served on the Defendant on July 23, 2014.

C. On August 6, 2014 and August 18, 2014, the first instance court sent the instant order to the Plaintiffs to the instant address, but was unable to serve the instant order due to the addressee’s unknownness. The first instance court issued the instant order to the instant stamp correction to the instant address by registered mail pursuant to Article 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on August 28, 2014.

D. After the plaintiffs sent the order to correct the stamp of this case by mail, the first instance court held that the correction period is the period for correction.

The plaintiffs on October 8, 2014, after designating the date of sentencing in order not to comply with the order of correction, on October 8, 2014

The judgment dismissing the instant lawsuit on the ground of nonperformance of the order to correct the stamp.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The grounds for the first instance court’s determination as unlawful of the instant lawsuit was cured by paying in full the stamp amount that has not been paid in the first instance court pursuant to the correction order of the stamp amount that has not been paid in the first instance court. The legitimacy of the judgment in the first instance court ought to be determined at the time of the closing of argument in the appellate court, not at the time of the closing of argument in the appellate court. Therefore, the judgment in

B. Prior to the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion, the order to correct the recognition of this case ex officio is the plaintiffs.

We examine whether it has been legally served or not.

(1) Whether the requirements for delivery under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act are met

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if it is impossible to serve as a supplementary service or a custody pursuant to Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act, a document may be sent by means prescribed by Supreme Court Regulations, such as registered mail," and Article 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "the delivery of a document pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be made by registered mail." However, as in the case of this case, where the place to serve as a supplementary service or a custody is premised on the validity of the place to serve as the place to serve as a service, and where the cause of impossibility of serving as to the address of this case is unknown as in the case of this case, the address of this case cannot be a valid place to serve as a proper place to serve, and thus, it is impossible

(2) Whether the requirements for delivery under Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Act are met

Article 185(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party, legal representative, or legal representative alters the place where a service is to be made, a report shall be made immediately to the court." Article 185(2) provides that "if the place where service is to be made by a person who has failed to make a report under paragraph (1) is unknown, the document to be served may be served by means prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations at the former place where service is to be made, and Article 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "the dispatch of the document under Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be made by registered mail". "Where the place where service is to be made by registered mail is unknown" under Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act means that "if it is not necessary to order the other party to correct his/her address or ex officio investigate the resident registration record card, etc., it shall be made only if the place where service is to be made by registered mail is unknown at least, it shall be made by means of registered mail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 20102Da1482.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs entered the instant address in the instant complaint as the Plaintiffs’ address, but drafted as of June 27, 2014, which was ten days before the filing of the complaint with the complaint.

된 원고들 명의의 소송제기서(갑 제2호증)에는 원고들의 주소가 "東京都 西東京市 間台町 ○○○"로 기재되어 있다. 위 법리에 비추어 살펴보면 비록 원고들이 이 사건 주소에서 소송서류를 송달받은 적이 있다고 하더라도 2014. 8.경에는 이 사건 인지보정명령이 수취인불명으로 송달불능이 된 이상, 제1심 법원으로서는 기록에 현출되어 있는원고들의 위 주소지로 송달하여 보고 그곳으로도 송달되지 않을 때에 비로소 이 사건 주소로 등기우편에 의한 발송송달을 하여야 한다. 그럼에도 이 사건 주소로 이 사건 인지보정명령을 송달한 후 수취인불명으로 송달불능이 되자 곧바로 등기우편에 의한 발송송달을 한 것은 위법하고 그 송달의 효력이 생기지 않는다.

C. Therefore, the first instance court sent the order to correct the instant stamp to the Plaintiffs by registered mail.

Since the service of this case is unlawful, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed on the ground of non-performance of the order to correct the stamp of this case.

subsection (b) of this section.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground of the plaintiffs' non-performance of the order to correct recognition.

Since it is unfair, it shall be revoked, and Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Seoul Administrative Court, which is the first instance court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

(c)