The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Article 55 (3) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that notification under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not be considered as a disposition under Article 11 (1) of the same Act, and ultimately, it shall not be subject to an objection, a request for examination, or a request for adjudgment. Thus, notification under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not be subject to administrative litigation, and it is also a view that it has been maintained by its principal source (see Supreme Court Decisions 56Da77, Aug. 14, 1956; 61Da40, Jan. 31, 1962). However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiffs violated Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the ground that the plaintiffs violated Article 11 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the plaintiffs notified the amount of notification that the plaintiffs sought its revocation in each of this case, the court below made a lawsuit in this case under the premise that it is subject to administrative litigation, and it is clear that the court below also made a decision on this case as an administrative litigation.

However, the above judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of law by misunderstanding that the subject of administrative litigation is not subject to administrative litigation as stated above.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in that it does not require the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant performer. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is eventually unlawful and dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)

Justices Kim Yong-chul is an overseas business trip, and thus unable to sign it.