(b) Whether a disposition of imposition is made on the ground that Class A earned income is paid to the tax office (negative)

B. Even though a withholding agent permits the deduction of the Class A earned income tax and the defense tax to be paid by him in a deposit passbook through the end of the tax office, and such tax was paid to the tax office, it shall not be deemed that there was a disposition of taxation within the meaning that the tax office imposed a final and conclusive tax amount.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The taxation authority's notification of change in income amount under the Income Tax Act cannot be an administrative disposition independently subject to a prior trial procedure or an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu419, Jan. 20, 1987). Thus, even if the plaintiff filed a request for a review on the notification of change in income amount, it cannot be an administrative disposition, and it cannot be an "when one of the dispositions is already made an administrative decision" under Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it cannot be an "when an administrative appeal has already been made" under Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff did not go through the prior trial procedure against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, and lack of right to explanation.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

In imposing corporate tax and defense tax on the plaintiff by timely evidence, the court below revealed the plaintiff's license lending through the actual investigation method, such as collecting data on the permission of building completion, and found the amount of the license lending fee from the plaintiff to 42 persons who have obtained the license from the plaintiff, and calculated the amount after deducting the amount equivalent to the value-added tax, and compared with the record, the court below's above fact-finding cannot be said to have violated the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in finding the above facts, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on estimated taxation.

All arguments are without merit.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In order to promote the convenience of tax collection, tax-related Acts cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution that provides that the Plaintiff shall withhold and pay Class A labor income tax to be paid by an employee in order to promote the convenience of tax collection, and even if the Plaintiff permitted the deduction of Class A labor income tax to be paid by the Plaintiff in the deposit passbook by the end of the tax office and the said tax was paid to the Defendant, it cannot be said that there was a disposition of imposition that only determined the tax amount by the tax authority on February 11, 1985. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the lawsuit against the disposition of imposition of Class A labor income of KRW 84,28,340, 94,430, and 94,280, as alleged by the Plaintiff is just and there is no violation of the legal principles or the precedents. The Plaintiff's argument on the appeal is without merit.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)