(b) Effect on imposition and collection disposition of defects in the imposition decision or notice by a tax payment notice;

(c) Nature of regulations and effects of violation of regulations on notification of the basis for calculating the amount of duty;

(d) The case where he becomes aware of the tax base, etc. ex post facto or any defect and healing in a notice of imposition;

E. Revocation of a tax imposition disposition that lacks legitimate requirements, and assessment judgment

B. In the tax payment, the notification of the tax imposition decision constitutes a part of the taxation disposition, and the defect of the notification act becomes the defect of the taxation disposition immediately. Thus, in the case where the tax authority notifies the payment order in the collection procedure without separately notifying the tax imposition, it also has the nature of the notification of the tax imposition and the nature of the collection order ordering the payment of the determined amount of tax. Therefore, the defect of the notification is both the defect of the imposition and collection disposition, and it cannot be deemed that only the defect of the collection disposition is the defect.

C. The provisions of Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, concerning the method of notifying taxpayers of the tax base, tax rate, amount of tax and other necessary matters such as the basis for calculation of tax amount, etc., shall be deemed to be a mandatory provision on taxation disposition, not a simple decoration provision on the disposition of collection, and a tax payment notice may not be deemed to be unlawful if there is any defect in the omission of some of the

D. If there is any defect in the omission of the entry of the tax base, etc. in the tax notice, it cannot be viewed as a lawful notice, and thus, the taxation disposition itself is illegal, so the taxpayer cannot be cured of the illegality on the ground that he/she actually becomes aware of the tax base and amount of tax, etc.

E. If a tax imposition disposition lacks the statement of tax base, etc., cancellation of an administrative disposition that lacks such legitimate requirements cannot be deemed as falling under the case where it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. The defendant cannot deny the benefit of lawsuit on the grounds that he did not know in advance the defect of the disposition, or because of economic, time, and mental waste.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the disposition of global income tax and the same defense tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff was unlawful because the tax payment notice does not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax.

On the other hand, the tax right is exercised through two stages of taxation and collection, and the taxation is a procedure to specifically determine the liability for tax payment established abstractly, and the collection refers to the procedure to order the performance of the established liability for tax payment and to collect it or to collect it by force. In the national tax in the method of imposition, when the tax authority determines the tax base and amount of tax verified by the investigation, the tax liability shall be specifically fixed, but the confirmation shall take effect when the decision is notified to the taxpayer.

Therefore, the notification of such decision constitutes a part of the taxation disposition, and thus, the defect of the notification act becomes the defect of the taxation disposition immediately. Thus, in the case where the taxation authority notifies the payment of the tax disposition in the collection procedure without separately notifying the decision, it also has the nature of the notification of the taxation disposition and the nature of the collection order ordering the payment of the determined amount of tax. Therefore, the defect of the notification act is both the defect of the taxation disposition and the collection disposition, and it cannot be said that it is merely the defect of the collection disposition.

However, according to Article 128 of the Income Tax Act and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the government shall require taxpayers to notify tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters determined by Articles 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act, and the method of notification shall be based on the method of notification. Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, a tax notice shall specify taxable years, tax items, tax amount, calculation basis, payment period, place of payment, etc.

According to the above provisions, the notification of the tax base and rate, the amount of tax and other necessary matters concerning the taxpayer's assessment basis constitutes an act of notifying the imposition decision as seen above, and thus, part of the imposition disposition is deemed to be dealt with. Thus, the provisions of each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the contents and method of the notification are not merely a decoration provision concerning the collection disposition, but a mandatory provision concerning the imposition disposition. In addition, if there is any defect in the notification requested by each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes which omitted some of the above provisions

Article 16(4) and Article 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a taxpayer may be allowed to peruse or copy a decision on investigation or related documents by the tax authority. However, the provision of each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes cannot be seen as a mere decoration provision on the ground that a taxpayer has an opportunity to peruse or copy such a decision, and the notification of lack in part of the notified matters cannot be seen as a lawful notification of imposition. As such, the disposition of imposition itself is unlawful, so the disposition of imposition itself cannot be seen as a legitimate notification of imposition. As such, as in the theory of lawsuit, whether the taxpayer is aware of the tax base and tax amount and the litigation is brought about, or can not be decided upon or cured. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of such illegality in the previous trial procedure was made late, and thus, it cannot be deemed as going against the precedents of party members pointing out the theory of lawsuit as an additional cause for a claim that

In conclusion, the judgment below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the legal principles and changes in claims under Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674, Feb. 28, 1984).

2. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

The revocation of an administrative disposition, such as the disposition of this case, which lacks legitimate requirements, does not constitute a case where it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. The defendant himself/herself does not know about the defect of the disposition of this case in advance, or even if he/she knows it in advance and continues a dispute without setting it, thereby denying the benefit of the lawsuit on the ground of economic, time, and mental waste merely is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)