[1] Whether the delivery of a tax payment notice and the delivery by mail are necessarily premised on the actual receipt by a taxpayer or a person in a certain relationship with the taxpayer (affirmative), and whether the delivery of a tax payment notice is necessary even where the taxpayer is already aware of the details of the tax payment notice (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a taxpayer intentionally avoided the receipt of a tax payment notice and a tax official makes a tax payment notice in a place of business inevitable, whether it can be viewed as legitimate service of a tax payment notice under the good faith principle

[1] The delivery of a tax payment notice and the delivery by mail must be deemed to be premised on the actual receipt by a taxpayer or a person in a certain relationship with the taxpayer, and even if the taxpayer is already aware of the details of the taxation disposition, the delivery of the tax payment notice is not required.

[2] Even if a person liable to receive a tax payment notice fails to designate a place to receive a tax payment notice as a place for tax payment for the purpose of avoiding the tax payment notice's expiration of the exclusion period, the tax official's vicarious designation of a person to receive a tax payment notice and a person to receive a supplementary service cannot be deemed to have received a tax payment notice based on the principle of trust and good faith.

[1] Articles 10 and 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002); Article 31 of the Postal Service Act; Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act; Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act / [2] Article 10(1), (2), (3), and (4), and Article 11(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002); Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 31 of the Postal Service Act; Article 42 of the Postal Service Act; Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5094 decided May 23, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1916) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da204 decided September 24, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3172)

East Sea Industry Corporation

Head of Dong Tax Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003Nu528 delivered on October 23, 2003

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

1. According to Article 10 subparag. 1, 2, and (3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), documents shall be served by registered mail when they are intended to serve by mail, such as the delivery of a tax payment notice, and documents shall be served by means of registered mail when they are intended to be served by a public official belonging to the relevant administrative agency. Under Article 10 subparag. 1, 2, and (3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), documents shall be served by delivery to the person to be served by registered mail at the place where the documents are to be served, and under Article 10 subparag. 13, 200 of the Act, documents shall be served by delivery to the person to be served by registered mail at the place where the documents are to be served.

In the same purport, the court below acknowledged the facts, and held that even if the defendant's employee explained the details of the disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case to the plaintiff's representative director by telephone, or sent a tax notice to the plaintiff by registered mail (if the plaintiff's representative director was returned to the absence of the recipient), the mail carrier's employee's entry of the tax payment notice in an envelope for receiving the mail in the above domicile or sent a tax payment notice to the plaintiff by facsimile, such circumstance alone does not lead to lawful delivery or registered mail under Article 10 of the Act. Further, even if the defendant's employee visited the plaintiff's place of business for delivering the tax payment notice of this case, the defendant's director or the place of business did not immediately keep the tax payment notice at the site and left the plaintiff's place of business again after leaving the place of business, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's rejection to receive the tax payment notice was a legitimate delivery of the tax payment notice by registered mail or the delivery of the tax payment notice by facsimile, etc., as alleged in the ground for appeal.

The Supreme Court Decision cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is inappropriate to be invoked in this case, since it differs from the case.

2. On the other hand, even if the defendant's public official who shall receive a tax notice fails to keep the place at which the person to receive a tax notice is to receive a partially for the purpose of avoiding the tax imposition exclusion period, and it was inevitable to keep the plaintiff's place of business at the plaintiff's location because the defendant's public official was not present the person to receive a tax notice, it cannot be deemed that the tax notice was served on the ground of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da204, Sept. 24, 1996; 96Nu5094, May 23, 197). Thus, the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the good faith principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes, as otherwise

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)