Busan District Court-2017-Gu 23385 (Law No. 21, 2018)

"An address or place of business is not known" means a case in which the address, etc. cannot be known despite due care of a good manager.

(At the same time as the judgment of the court of first instance) it is difficult for the tax authorities to deem that the taxation authorities to have fulfilled their due diligence when they visited the above spouse's domicile only once for the shortage of housework and serve the tax payment notice by public notice after having visited the above spouse's domicile.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Nu2210. Detailed global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

Plaintiff, (P) Appellants

The AA

Defendant, (P) Appellants

지지지지

Busan District Court Decision 2017Guhap23385 Decided June 21, 2018

November 2, 2018

November 30, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition disposition of KRW 1,057,815,054 and penalty tax of KRW 590,604,725, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on May 13, 2009, is null and void (the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim as above in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The Defendant asserts that the service by public notice on the instant tax notice was lawful even in the trial. However, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant’s duty of care as a good manager in identifying the Plaintiff’s address for the purpose of delivering the instant tax notice, based on the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care in identifying the Plaintiff’s address.

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 visited the domicile of the Plaintiff’s spouse, and did not take any additional measures to confirm whether the Plaintiff’s spouse resides through the Plaintiff’s spouse, and immediately served the instant tax payment notice on the sole basis of one visit.

Therefore, it is just that the first instance court determined that the service by public notice on the instant tax payment notice was unlawful on the grounds of its stated reasoning, as it failed to meet the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In so doing, there is no error as alleged in the Defendant’s

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court is that the reasoning for this case is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the second and the last conduct from 18th of the judgment of the first instance (part of the developments leading to the disposition of the first instance) as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used in bulk

[D. The Defendant: (a) on May 13, 2015, the global income tax of KRW 1,057,315,054 for the Plaintiff on May 13, 2015 (i.e., calculated tax amount of KRW 1,057,815,054 – KRW 500,000 as tax amount; (b) additional tax of KRW 590,604,725 (i.e., penalty tax of KRW 423,126,021 + Additional tax of KRW 167,478,704) plus penalty tax of KRW 1,647,919,70 for the Plaintiff on May 13, 2015 pursuant to the foregoing notice of taxation:

2. Conclusion

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