early 2012 Heavy0966 (Law No. 10, 2012)

No evidence exists to acknowledge that a tax notice is unlawful;

No evidence exists to deem that a tax payment notice is unlawful merely because a tax payment notice has been sent to his/her domicile and his/her spouse has received a tax payment notice.

2012Gudan1912 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

leAA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

November 19, 2012

December 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On October 1, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2004 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 17, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the land of 000 O-ri 000 o-ri land and the building on its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax.

B. From July 29, 2008 to August 22, 2008, the Defendant conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on the instant real estate from July 29, 2008, and on October 1, 2008, issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 of capital gains tax for 2004 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was unable to receive a tax payment notice under the instant disposition, and the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In an administrative litigation claiming that an administrative disposition is void as a matter of course and seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010). Therefore, as in the instant case, where the service of a tax payment notice is unlawful and thus the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the service of a tax payment notice is invalid, and the service of a tax payment notice is unlawful. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the service of a tax payment notice based on the instant disposition is unlawful, and rather, according to the respective statements in subparagraphs B through B and 5 and 11, the Defendant sent a tax payment notice based on the instant disposition to 00 U.S. at the time of Yangyang-si, the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Plaintiff’s spouse received the above tax payment notice on October 8, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.