B. Whether a dispute may be raised as to the tax amount based on the already determined taxation in an appeal litigation against a disposition of increase or correction of the tax amount already determined (affirmative)

B. The burden of proving the legitimate requirements in the procedure of the taxation disposition in the revocation suit

B. Even if the period of objection or the completion of the pre-trial procedure has become final and conclusive, and the so-called non-existence or non-existence of a final and conclusive assessment has occurred, such a final and conclusive assessment is based on the premise that such a final and conclusive assessment continues to exist effectively. As long as the first taxation disposition loses its independent existence value by absorbing the above revised assessment based on the subsequent revised assessment, there is no room to acknowledge the non-existence or non-existence of a final and conclusive assessment. Accordingly, in litigation proceedings on the revised assessment, the parties concerned may contest the illegality of the initial

C. In an appeal litigation seeking revocation of taxation, the tax authority is responsible to prove that not only the substantial taxation requirements but also the procedural legitimate requirements of taxation are satisfied.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) In a case where the tax authority found an error or omission in the tax base and amount of tax after a tax disposition was issued and subsequently corrected such a disposition, the first taxation disposition remains in force within the scope of the reduction of tax base and amount of tax determined in the first taxation disposition, and only the said disposition remains in effect within the scope of the reduction of tax base and amount of tax determined in the subsequent taxation disposition, and cannot be subject to litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Nu253, Mar. 9, 1982; 82Nu55, Nov. 23, 1982; 81Nu393, Nov. 23, 1982). In a case of a reorganization of increase, the first taxation disposition is not only determined with its tax base and amount of tax determined in the first taxation disposition, but also with its tax base and amount of tax increased as a whole including its tax base and amount of tax. Thus, the first taxation disposition becomes an independent part of the subsequent reorganization disposition, thereby losing its value and becomes subject to litigation (see, e. 1984.3).

However, in a case where the first taxation disposition was made after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the pre-trial procedure, there is no room for a theory as to whether it can be contested against the tax amount due to the already-determined taxation in an appeal litigation against the reorganization disposition. However, even if the taxation disposition became final and conclusive by the expiration of the objection period or the completion of the pre-trial procedure, even if so-called in a case where the so-called in question or the unexploiability has occurred, such a final and conclusive disposition is based on the premise that the validity of such a final and conclusive disposition remains effective, so long as the first taxation disposition has lost its independent existence value due to the absorption of the above reorganization disposition, there is no room for recognizing the influencies or unexploiability. Therefore, in the litigation procedure against the reorganization disposition, the parties concerned may contest against the tax base and tax amount due to the first final and conclusive taxation disposition, and if it is unlawful after

The above mentioned above is not only applicable to the cases between piting and re-piting.

(2) According to the facts established by the court below in this case, the defendant denied the plaintiff's business year from April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977 (hereinafter "1976 business year) and the business year from April 1, 197 to March 31, 1978 (hereinafter "197 business year") and 3,490,309,224 won, the tax base of 505,536,281 won, the defense tax base of 1,395,323,689 won, the tax amount of 105,367, 297, 297, 297, 297, 305, 297, 297, 396, 297, 396, 297, 396, 297, 396, 297, 197, 396, 2975, 297, 3197, 25

According to the above facts, with respect to the corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1976, the original tax assessment by the decision, the subsequent reorganization and reorganization disposition by the previous reorganization disposition by the previous reorganization disposition by the last reorganization disposition shall be extinguished, and only the reorganization disposition by the previous reorganization shall be the object of litigation. On the other hand, with respect to the corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1977, the original tax assessment by the previous decision shall be the object of litigation within the scope of the reduced amount by the reorganization disposition by the above other reasons.

Therefore, the court below's final disposition of reorganization of corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1976 shall be subject to the judgment, and judged the legality of the disposition of imposition of increased tax base and tax amount as a whole, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1977 shall be subject to the judgment, and the disposition of imposition of tax base and tax within the scope of reduced amount by the initial disposition of reorganization shall not be justified and trees shall not be raised.

The issue is on the erroneous premise that each increase in corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1976 by the defendant exists separately from the original tax assessment and subsequent reorganization, reorganization, reorganization, reorganization, etc., which were conducted by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff's acceptance of the disposition other than the reorganization disposition for July 6, 1981, the object of the judgment in this lawsuit is subject to the disposition of imposition on the increased amount due to the reorganization disposition for the above reorganization. In addition, it is unreasonable because the court below's revocation of the part already finalized was due to the lack of sufficient deliberation or gross mistake of facts.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In an appeal litigation seeking revocation of taxation disposition, the tax authority is responsible to prove that not only the taxation requirements in substance but also the legitimate requirements in the process of taxation disposition are satisfied.

As stated in the preceding paragraph, in the corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1976, the object of the appeal of this case is the final disposition of re-assessment made by the defendant, and in the corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1977, the original disposition of re-assessment is considered to be the initial disposition. Thus, when the defendant makes a decision of re-assessment or re-assessment and notifies the plaintiff who is the taxpayer by the notice of tax payment, he must prove that all the requirements for the entries in the notice of tax payment and the accompanying requirements for the specification required by Article 58 and Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act are satisfied, and even after examining the record, the court below's order to revoke each

The argument points out that the court below erred by recognizing the deficiency in the notification requirement without any evidence on the premise that the burden of proof on the legal requirements of the above notification lies in the plaintiff who is a taxpayer.

3. The grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 are also examined.

According to Articles 58 and 37 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act that apply to this case, when the tax authorities determine or correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax, they shall notify the relevant corporation thereof, and the method of notification shall be based on the tax notice to attach the tax base and calculation statement of tax amount and the specification of retained earnings of the relevant corporation. Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, the tax notice shall specify the tax year, tax item, tax amount, calculation basis, payment period, and place of payment.

As above, the act of notifying the taxpayer of the determination of imposition along with the calculation statement, etc. stating the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters, such as the basis for calculation of tax amount, etc., is not merely a simple collection disposition, but also a specific tax liability confirmation becomes effective against the taxpayer by this notice. Thus, if there is any defect in the omission of the necessary matters required by each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes in the notification act, the disposition of imposition shall not be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on February 28, 1984; 83Nu636 delivered on March 13, 1984).

In addition, Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that a tax authority may allow a person without tax payment to peruse or copy a written investigation decision or relevant documents. However, it is clear that the above provision of the Act and subordinate statutes ordering a person liable for tax payment to specify the tax base and amount of tax and other necessary matters in the notice of imposition decision on the ground that the person has an opportunity to peruse or copy such documents. It is apparent that the above provision of the Act and subordinate statutes cannot be deemed merely a simple decoration provision, such as a lawsuit

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 a taxpayer is illegal or not depending on whether he/she actually becomes aware of the tax base and amount of tax, etc. and becomes a 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 litigation procedure, and it cannot be deemed as an addition of the cause of claim without identity as in the theory of the lawsuit, which goes against the precedents of the timely party members.

Ultimately, in this case, the court below was just in holding that the disposition of the corporate tax, etc. of this case against the plaintiff was an unlawful disposition since there is no evidence to view that the notice of tax payment was lawful, and there is no argument that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes as to the mutual relation between the entire tax law system and the purpose and scope of application of each positive law.

4. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 5.

This paper argues that even if the disposition of this case omitted the entry of the tax base and the basis for calculation of tax amount, if the substance of the disposition is legitimate, it is appropriate for the public welfare to ultimately pay the tax of this case, and that cancellation of the disposition of this case is inappropriate for public welfare, and therefore, it should have dismissed the plaintiff's claim pursuant to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, since it is not appropriate for the public welfare. If the defendant takes the same disposition by preparing the form of the procedure, it would only lead to economic, time, and mental waste, and there is no practical benefit for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

However, cancellation 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 continues a dispute without setting the defects of the disposition of this case, thereby denying the benefit of lawsuit on the ground of economic, time, and mental waste. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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)