[2] The method of writing a tax payment notice when aggregate taxation on property income is added

[3] The scope of joint and several tax liability of family members subject to the sum of assets

[2] Articles 2(2) and 103 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4163 of Dec. 30, 1989) and Article 183(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12877 of Dec. 30, 1989) provide that family members subject to cumulative taxation are jointly and severally liable for tax payment with the principal income earner with respect to assets subject to cumulative taxation. Therefore, the notification of tax amount, etc. based on a single tax payment notice is based on the premise that not only on the principal income earner but also on the relationship between the principal income earner and the family subject to cumulative taxation. When the head of a tax office collects national taxes, he/she shall issue a written notice specifying the items, amount, etc. of national tax to the taxpayer. In full view of the provisions of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, one tax payment notice must include not only the contents of property income by family subject to cumulative taxation but also the amount of tax to be paid jointly by the principal income earner and the income earner.

[3] It is clear under Article 2 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4163 of Dec. 30, 1989) that the scope of the tax amount to be jointly and severally paid by family members subject to total sum of assets with the principal income earner is limited to the tax amount on property income of family members subject to total sum of assets in the global income of the principal income earner.

The court below concluded an agreement on the consignment operation of a private teaching institute with the purport that the owner of the building located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul and directly operated the private teaching institute under the trade name of △△△ in the building after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the private teaching institute on July 4, 1988, which was leased to others on or around July 4, 1988, and made it difficult for the plaintiff to separately include the objective value as intangible fixed assets of the above private teaching institute, and to use the facilities and the house units necessary for the operation of the above private teaching institute on or before the completion of school affairs from July 1, 1988 to the date of the completion of school affairs, and made it possible for the plaintiff to directly operate the above private teaching institute and pay a monthly fixed amount of rent. From January 1, 1989 to December 31 of the same year, 198, the court below rejected all of the elements of the plaintiff's right to lease the real estate and the right to lease the real estate in whole or in part.

However, even if based on the above facts, the above rent includes not only the rent for the private teaching institute building, but also the rent for the establishment of the private teaching institute which the plaintiff received from the administrative office on 1980 and operated in the form of direct or loan for a long time, and also the cost for the lease of business rights, including intangible property value, including property value. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to real estate income or other income, which affected the judgment of the court below, by examining the ordinary rent for the above private teaching institute building and examining the part of the rent for the lease of business rights, excluding the cost for the lease of the private teaching institute building out of the rent under the above contract, and the parties to the above private teaching institute have decided to disregard the rent for the lease of business rights and only the amount equivalent to the rent for the private teaching institute building, barring special circumstances such as disregarding the consideration for the lease of business rights.

2. Article 2(3) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the principal income earner and the family members subject to cumulative taxation shall be jointly and severally liable to pay for property income (Article 2(3) of the Act), and Article 103 of the former Income Tax Act provides that when the principal income earner and the family members subject to cumulative taxation file a final return on the tax base, the principal income earner shall file a return jointly with the family members subject to cumulative taxation (Article 103 of the Act). Article 103 of the Act provides that when the head of a tax office notifies the tax base and tax amount determined by adding property income of the family members subject to cumulative taxation, other than the principal income earner, to the global income of the principal income earner, the head of a tax office shall file a tax payment notice, but shall include the details of property income of each family subject to cumulative taxation

Such provisions also provide that family members subject to cumulative taxation are jointly and severally liable with the principal income earner with respect to property income subject to cumulative taxation. Accordingly, the notification of tax amount, etc. by a single tax notice is premised not only on the relationship between the principal income earner and the principal income earner but also on the relationship between the family subject to cumulative taxation and the family subject to cumulative taxation. In full view of the provisions of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, where the head of a tax office, etc. collects national taxes, he/she shall issue a written notice specifying the items of national tax and the amount of tax, etc. to taxpayers, a single tax notice must include not only the contents of property income for each family subject to cumulative taxation but also the amount of tax jointly and severally payable with the principal income earner (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12575, May 25, 1993). It is clear that the scope of tax amount jointly and severally payable is limited to the amount of tax on property income of family subject to cumulative taxation of assets subject to cumulative taxation of the principal income earner.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the procedure for the duty payment notice to the plaintiff, who is the family subject to asset aggregate taxation, on the grounds that the joint and several tax liability of the family subject to asset aggregate taxation extends to the total amount of global income subject to asset aggregate taxation, and that the procedure for the duty payment notice to the plaintiff was lawful even with the delivery of the tax payment notice written only. The ground of appeal pointing this out also has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)