1. Article 81-12(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that a person subject to prior notice of taxation, etc. may request the head of a tax office, the director of a regional tax office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (hereinafter referred to as the “head of a tax office, etc.”) to conduct a pre-assessment review, and Article 63-9(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21316, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that a person delegated by Article 81-12(1) of the same Act provides that a person subject to prior notice of taxation may withhold taxation until a decision is made: Provided, That where a person falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 81-12(2) of the Act, the head of a tax office, etc., who has received a request for pre-assessment review, may collect taxes before the payment period.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the manufacture, sale, etc. of retirement fees on June 7, 2006 to the first half of 2001; (b) imposed value-added tax of 80,829,002 for the first half of 200 on July 3, 2006; (c) requested the Defendant to impose the said notice on July 5, 2006; (d) the Defendant was delinquent in paying value-added tax for the first half of 2001; (e) the Defendant seized the portion of land shares, etc. for the second half of 200, 2006, 30, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 16, 206, 40, 206, 206, 206, 206, 16, 364, 27, 166, 20, 36, 4.

Based on these factual basis, the lower court determined that the first imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second term portion in 2001 and the first term portion in 2002 was unlawful prior to the determination of the claim for pre-assessment review, and that the defect is serious and clear, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that even if the Plaintiff received the first term portion in 2001 and the first term portion in 202 prior to the payment period due to the failure to pay national taxes, it could have been subject to taxation even before the determination of the claim for pre-payment review on the first term portion in 2001, the first term portion in 2001 and the first term portion in 202, it was difficult to view that the Defendant had received the first 20 years prior notice of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second term portion in 201 and the second term portion in 200, and that even if the Plaintiff had received the first 20 years prior notice of imposition of value-added tax for the second term in 200, the Defendant did not deprive the Defendant’s right to collect 1010 years prior notice.

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Although the pre-assessment review system has been established in order to enhance the effectiveness of the protection of rights by reflecting taxpayer's claims in the pre-assessment phase separate from the post-assessment remedy system after the taxation disposition, it does not constitute an essential premise for the pre-assessment disposition, such as tax exemption if the exclusion period of the pre-assessment assessment is imminent. Moreover, even in cases where a reason for the pre-assessment arises due to a taxpayer's credit trend, loss of self-sufficiency, etc., it is necessary to limit the scope of the pre-assessment review in order to secure the right of tax collection in advance. Accordingly, Article 81-12(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 63-9(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, one of the reasons that the pre-assessment review cannot be requested until a decision on the pre-assessment review or a request for pre-assessment review has not been made, and if the reasons for the pre-assessment review have occurred after the payment period, the head of a tax office, etc., even before a decision on the pre-assessment request.

Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, so long as the Plaintiff’s land share, etc. owned by the Plaintiff due to the failure to pay value-added tax for the first period of July 5, 2006 after the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review, it cannot be deemed that there was an error in the process of imposing value-added tax for the second period of January 3, 2007 and imposing value-added tax for the first period of June 1, 2007 without the Defendant’s decision on the request for pre-assessment review, and the first period of taxation for the first period of October 19, 2007, the first period of taxation for the second year of 201, the second period of taxation for the second year of 2001, and the first period of taxation for the second year of 2002, the first period of taxation for the first period of 201, and the first period of taxation for the second year of 2002, the first period of taxation for the first period of 201, and 201.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the grounds for collection have occurred prior to the payment period at the time of the imposition of the second term portion in 2001 and the first term portion in 2002. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for collection prior to the payment period, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)