B. Whether a revocation suit against a disposition imposing additional dues without a payment demand is appropriate (negative)

B. Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that if national taxes are not paid by the due date, additional dues shall be naturally incurred and the amount thereof shall be determined if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for the payment of delinquent arrears. However, in order to commence the collection procedure, it shall be possible to urge the payment by the due date, and if the demand for the payment of additional dues is unfair or defect is found in the procedure, it shall be possible to object to the revocation lawsuit against the collection disposition. Thus, the defendant, who is the tax authority, did not engage in any act to determine the additional dues of this case. However, if the plaintiff fails to demand the payment by the due date after the due date for the payment of capital gains tax, etc., the plaintiff's request for the revocation of the additional dues of this case shall not be unlawful.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal concerning the above dismissed part shall be assessed against the plaintiff and the costs of appeal concerning the dismissed part shall be assessed against the defendant.

According to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988), income from the transfer of land which has been cultivated by himself continuously for 8 years or longer from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer shall be non-taxable capital gains. The "land cultivated by himself" under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the same Act includes not only the land directly cultivated by himself, dry field, dry field, and harvested and harvested crops, but also the land cultivated by employing other persons under his own responsibility and account (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu145 of Dec. 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 2087Nu1297985 of Feb. 23, 198; 207Nu297579, Jul. 29, 2097). 207

In the above purport, the judgment of the court below that held the income from the transfer of the land of this case as non-taxable income is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to self-Cultivating farmland such as theory of lawsuit

However, in a case where national taxes are not paid by the due date, the additional dues under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, as a kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears, if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment of the national taxes by the due date, the additional dues under the above provision of the Act shall be naturally accrued and the amount thereof shall be determined. Provided, That in order to commence the collection procedure, it shall be possible to urge the payment by the demand notice, and in a case where the demand for the payment of the additional dues is unfair or defect occurs in the procedure, it shall be possible to object to the revocation lawsuit against the collection disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu147, Oct. 28, 198; 85Nu635, Sept. 20, 198).

According to the records, the defendant did not perform any act to determine the additional dues of this case, but on August 18, 198, notified the plaintiff that if he did not pay by August 31, 198, the payment notice of capital gains tax of this case, etc. of this case, the additional dues should be collected until September 30, 198 after the payment deadline, and since there was no demand for the payment after the payment deadline, the disposition to impose the additional dues of this case which the plaintiff seeks cancellation does not exist, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the additional dues of this case shall be deemed unlawful.

However, the court below revoked the Defendant’s disposition of imposing the surcharge of this case, which is unlawful and thus cannot be reversed.

This part of the judgment below is reversed and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant against the disposition of additional dues is dismissed, since it is sufficient for the party members to reverse and reverse this part.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed on the grounds that there are no grounds other than the part of the judgment of reversal ex officio. The costs of appeal on the dismissed appeal and the costs of appeal on the reversed part are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)