(b) Effect on imposition and collection disposition of defects in issuing or notifying a tax payment notice;

(c) Character and effect of violation of regulations concerning notification to taxpayers of tax bases, etc.;

(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) A ground for revocation on the formal defect, but the substance of the imposition is legitimate, and a judgment of assessment;

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 decision, 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 the defect of the disposition of imposition and the collection order, and it cannot be deemed that only the defect is the defect of the collection disposition.

C. Article 128 of the Income Tax Act on the method of notifying taxpayers of their tax bases, tax rates, etc., Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act provide for a mandatory provision on taxation disposition, not a simple decoration provision on the collection disposition. If there is any defect in the notification required by each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, which omitted some of the above provisions, the disposition for taxation cannot be deemed unlawful.

D. If there is a defect in the omission of the entry of the tax base, etc. in the tax notice, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate notice, and thus, the disposition of imposition itself is unlawful. Thus, since the taxpayer becomes aware of the tax base, tax amount, etc. and becomes a litigation, the illegality cannot be cured.

E. If a tax imposition disposition lacks the statement of tax base, etc., it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of an administrative disposition that lacks legitimate requirements is inappropriate for public welfare. Thus, even though it is a type defect, it is appropriate for the substance of the imposition disposition, and thus, if the defendant again takes the same disposition with the same form procedure, it is waste of time and expenses due to the litigation procedure, and thus, it is without merit that the claim should be dismissed pursuant to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court ordered the revocation of the instant global income tax and defense detailed and disposition, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the relevant tax payment notice does not fully state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, and thus

(2) The tax right is exercised through two stages of taxation and collection, and the taxation refers to the 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 the procedure to receive or enforce it. As regards the national tax in the method of imposition, the tax liability specifically becomes final and conclusive when the tax authority determines the tax base and amount of tax, or its confirmation becomes effective when the decision is notified to the taxpayer.

Therefore, the notification of such 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 taxation authority notifies the payment order in the collection procedure without separately notifying the decision, it also has the nature of the taxation disposition notified and the nature of the collection order ordering the payment of the finalized amount of tax. Therefore, it is clear that the defect of the notification is both the defect of the taxation disposition and the collection disposition, and it is nothing more than the defect of the collection disposition.

However, according to Article 128 of the Income Tax Act and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Government shall require taxpayers to notify the 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 stated in the tax notice. Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, a tax notice shall specify taxable year, tax item, tax amount, calculation basis, payment period, and place of payment.

According to the above provisions, the notification of the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters concerning the basis for calculation of the tax amount to the taxpayer is deemed to constitute an act of notifying the imposition decision as seen above and dealt with part of the disposition of imposition. Thus, each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the contents and method of the notification shall be deemed to be a mandatory provision concerning the disposition of imposition, not a mere decoration on the disposition of collection. If there is any defect in the notification required by each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes which omitted some of the above provisions, the disposition of imposition

In addition, Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulate that a taxpayer may be allowed to peruse or copy the investigation decision or related documents of the tax authority. However, it is clear that the above statutory provision that orders the taxpayer to specify the tax base, tax amount, and other necessary matters in the notice of the decision to impose on the taxpayer for the reason that the opportunity to peruse or copy is guaranteed. It is apparent that the above statutory provision is not only a simple decoration provision, such as a lawsuit, in light of the nature of the above notice.

In addition, since notification of lack of part of the above notification can not be seen as a legitimate notification of imposition, the disposition of imposition itself is unlawful. Thus, as in the theory of lawsuit, whether the taxpayer is illegal or not, depending on whether he/she actually becomes aware of the tax base and amount of tax, etc. and reaches the litigation.

In addition, the defendant did not claim the above illegality in the pre-trial procedure, and the defendant asserted it later in the appeal procedure, and it cannot be deemed that it goes against the precedents of the party members in the pre-trial procedure as an addition to the cause of claim without identity, such as the theory of lawsuit.

(3) Ultimately, we do not agree with the judgment below that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the modification of the legal principles and claims under Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

This paper argues that if the disposition of this case lacks the statement of tax base and other tax amount, if the substance of the disposition is legitimate, it is appropriate for the public welfare to ultimately pay the tax amount of the disposition of this case, and it is inappropriate for the public welfare to cancel the disposition of this case due to its form defect, and therefore, it should have dismissed the plaintiff's claim pursuant to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. If the defendant conducts the same disposition with the form of procedure and satisfies the same procedure, the plaintiff and the defendant are only suffering from waste of economic, time, and mental health, and there is no practical benefit in the lawsuit.

However, it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of an administrative disposition that lacks legitimate requirements, such as the disposition of this case, constitutes a case where it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. The defendant's own knowledge of the defect in the disposition of this case or where the defendant was aware of the defect in the disposition of this case and continues the dispute without setting it, denying the interest in the lawsuit on the ground of economic, time, and mental waste is merely the sole part of the original theory of the first day and thus, is groundless

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)