The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On May 30, 1985, the day on which the Plaintiff voluntarily reported and paid the defense tax on the deemed dividend income of this case pursuant to Article 5 of the Defense Tax Act, Articles 100 and 107 of the Income Tax Act, the lower court deliberated and decided on whether the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation was reasonable on the ground that part of the verified disposition was unlawful, on the premise that the Plaintiff could claim revocation by an appeal litigation, on the ground that there was a confirmatory disposition that the Defendant would have determined the amount of the defense tax amount of KRW 122,816,024.

2. However, in cases where a taxpayer of income tax, which is a tax imposing method, files a final return of tax base pursuant to Articles 100 and 107 of the Income Tax Act and files a return of tax base along with the defense tax amount to be paid (the final return of final return of final return of final return of final return of final return of final return of final return of tax base), the lower court’s determination that there was a “a confirmatory disposition” by the tax authority when the taxpayer files a final return of final return of final return of final return of tax base cannot be deemed to have been the cause of tax settlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu557, Feb. 24, 1987; 87Nu76, Nov. 10, 1987; 8Nu1476, Jun. 27, 1989; 88Nu1483, Oct. 24, 198; 8Nu9077, Oct. 27, 1989).

This is because the theory of the so-called "verificational Imposition Disposition" is unfair for the following reasons.

First, in light of the provisions of the current laws and regulations on the confirmation of tax claims, the theory that can not be allowed.

The term "tax assessment" is a procedure for specifically ascertaining the substance of tax base and amount of income tax under the current tax laws and regulations. It is determined by the tax authority to determine the tax base and amount of tax (Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and its final determination shall take place when the tax authority notifies the taxpayer in writing of the tax base and amount of tax by stating the tax base, tax rate, amount of tax and other necessary matters in the tax payment notice, and, even if there is no amount of tax to be paid, it shall be stated in the tax payment notice in writing and shall be notified in writing (Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 183 of the same Act). The above provisions on the tax base and amount of tax are not merely for convenience in tax administration, but also for the taxpayer to be declared in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law. 2819.

Second, there is a concern that the remedies for taxpayers may be restricted in administrative litigation.

This theory seems to be like the theory that, upon the receipt of tax by the tax authority, the tax authority does not take any measures after receiving the final return tax return (it may be deemed to be a tax administrative practice in the absence of the amount of tax to be paid) and that, upon the receipt of the tax by the tax authority, the tax authority would allow the taxpayer to file an administrative litigation regarding the tax disposition so that the taxpayer would have more opportunities to recover the right.

However, in practice, a taxpayer is thought to have not yet made a tax assessment unless the tax base and amount of tax are notified by a tax payment notice. Therefore, it would not be possible to go through the preceding trial procedure properly. Moreover, due to the failure of a tax payment notice to notify the tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, etc. by a tax payment notice, it would be difficult to bring about unexpected disadvantages in administrative litigation, such as having difficulty in making it difficult to constitute the grounds for a request for examination or adjudgment. Even in this case, the lower court is in excess of the judgment, but the Plaintiff failed to go through legitimate procedures for the “verification disposition” (the instant defense tax base return as of June 29, 1985 and the decision of dismissal as of September 2, 1985).

It is unfair that the tax authority is the taxpayer who is not in compliance with the provisions of the laws and regulations on the procedure for the confirmation of tax claims.

In addition, the result is contrary to the fundamental purpose of the tax laws and regulations which provide that the taxpayer notify the tax base and the decision of the tax amount by notice of tax payment to the taxpayer.

Third, even in a case where there is a defect that is not a reason for revocation in the "verification disposition" and the amount of excess payment is generated, due to the fairness of the taxation disposition, the taxpayer cannot claim the return of the amount of tax by unjust enrichment through civil procedure before the cancellation of the taxation disposition. If the taxpayer is deemed to have made a final return of tax, the taxpayer cannot be able to claim the return of the amount of tax by unjust enrichment when he/she has made a final return of tax payment, as seen earlier, because he/she was unable to know the fact that the tax disposition became a final return of tax disposition, and thus, he/she

Fourth, it is necessary to pay attention to the person acting in good faith who has filed a final return to be disadvantaged in administrative litigation or civil litigation by recognizing the theory of "a final return". A taxpayer who has not filed a final return to pay final return is notified of the tax base and the details of the tax amount and is relieved of the right. On the other hand, a taxpayer who has filed a final return to pay final return may not receive such notification.

Fifth, according to this theory, the time when the confirmation of tax claim becomes effective is different when the final return is made by final return (when the taxpayer has made final return by final return) and when the tax authority notifies the taxpayer of the tax base and new amount by the tax payment notice (when the taxpayer receives the tax payment notice), and there is a concern that the complicated tax legal relationship may be omitted even if the tax authority as well as the taxpayer does not cause unnecessary misunderstanding and confusion.

3. It is clear that the Supreme Court Decision 70Da1195 Decided August 31, 1970; Decision 82Da501 Decided April 12, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12066 Decided September 12, 1989 stated that the tax authority’s “a confirmatory disposition” should be deemed to have existed when filing a final return on the income tax, which is a tax imposed method under the current tax law, and the subsequent defense tax.

4. Thus, since the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have imposed tax on May 30, 1985 at the date of final return of the defense tax of this case, it cannot be deemed that there was a tax assessment by the defendant on May 30, 1985, and even though it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful because it is claiming revocation of the tax assessment without absence of a lawsuit of this case, the court below deemed that there was "the defendant's "written disposition for confirmation", and judged whether the plaintiff's claim was reasonable because it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confirmation of the tax claim, and since such illegality is obvious that it affected the judgment, the judgment of the court below is not exempt from reversal in this respect

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)