B. Whether there exists a claim in the administrative litigation procedure as to the violation of the mandatory provisions of the taxation disposition that was not asserted in the previous trial procedure

B. It is reasonable to view that the administrative litigation can assert the defects of the taxation itself even though the administrative litigation did not assert that the taxation in question was erroneous in violation of the mandatory provisions in the pre-trial procedure of the administrative litigation.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the head of a tax office, the head of a Si, or the head of a Gun intends to collect a national tax, a written notice stating the year of taxation, tax item, amount of tax, grounds for calculation thereof, deadline for tax payment and place for payment of the national tax shall be issued to taxpayers, and Article 128 of the Income Tax Act provides that the government shall make a written notice stating the tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, and other necessary matters determined under the provisions of Articles 117 through 120 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to be stated in a tax payment notice. The above provisions purport to ensure fairness in tax administration by allowing the disposition authority to exclude and take careful and reasonable measures in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, and at the same time, strictly applying the provision to the taxpayer to the purport that he intends to make a decision of objection and to make convenience in filing an objection. If such written notice is omitted, the tax disposition itself shall be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 200Nu138485, 285, 197.385, 1982, 208.208.

According to the records, although the defendant stated the tax items, tax amounts, and payment period for each tax notice in the instant tax disposition, it is clear that the tax base, tax rates, and other tax amounts were not specified in the calculation basis, and therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in holding that the tax notice violates the above mandatory provisions, and thus the disposition of the tax notice cannot be revoked as it is unlawful.

2. The theory of lawsuit is merely a decoration provision, but it is evident that the above provision is not an independent opinion that is contrary to the principle of no taxation without law, and that the case of party members cited in the theory of lawsuit is not about the above mandatory provision, even though it can be perused at the request of a taxpayer or a person who raises an objection, etc. pursuant to Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

3. As above, as long as the Defendant’s disposition of taxation in this case violates the mandatory nature of tax laws and regulations, it shall be reasonable to revoke it. Since the Defendant, the taxation authority, if imposing tax again, can reach the objective of filing a lawsuit, the Defendant’s theory that the revocation is inappropriate for the public welfare as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is not acceptable, and even if the Defendant did not assert that there was an error in violation of the above mandatory provisions in the pre-trial procedure of the administrative litigation, it is reasonable to view that the instant disposition of taxation in this case can be asserted with the defect in the administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu312, Nov. 11, 1980).

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)