logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2018.11.30 2018누22210
종합소득세부과처분무효확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The defendant cited the judgment of the court of first instance asserts that service by public notice on the instant tax notice is lawful even in the trial.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care as a good manager in verifying the address of the Plaintiff for the purpose of delivering the tax payment notice of this case, even if the Defendant added the evidence of the first instance court to the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows:

① The Defendant, one year prior to the Defendant’s attempt to serve the instant tax notice, etc. regarding global income tax for 2007 on the Plaintiff’s domicile, was already returned to the Plaintiff’s absence of the recipient by means of registered mail on the Plaintiff’s resident registration, served the Plaintiff’s spouse’s domicile and sent a demand notice thereafter. At the time, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that the Plaintiff’s actual domicile was not the Plaintiff’s resident registration address, and the Plaintiff’s actual domicile was identified as the spouse’s domicile.

② In such circumstances, the Defendant’s employees visited the Plaintiff’s resident registration address for the delivery of the instant tax payment notice, and the Plaintiff’s spouse’s address could not be confirmed at all times, and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff’s spouse resides in the same place through family helpers at the time.

③ Nevertheless, the Defendant’s employees did not stay at the Plaintiff’s spouse’s domicile and returned to P.M. without any specific confirmation, solely based on the family helpers’ answer that the Plaintiff did not live at the address.

④ Since then, the Defendant did not take any additional measures to confirm whether the Plaintiff’s spouse resides through the Plaintiff’s spouse after visiting the domicile of the Plaintiff’s spouse, only once.

arrow