[재산세부과처분취소][공1985.3.1.(747),257]
Whether the revocation of a taxation disposition made by a tax payment notice with the omission of a statement on the basis of calculating the amount of tax is significantly contrary to the public welfare (negative)
A tax disposition based on a tax notice in which a statement on the basis of calculating the amount of tax was omitted is contrary to the mandatory provisions, and thus, is subject to revocation. As a result, even if the tax authority was at a disadvantage that would make the same tax disposition more unfavorable, the revocation of the said tax disposition cannot be deemed significantly contrary to the public welfare.
Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu664 Delivered on June 12, 1984
[Judgment of the court below]
The head of Gangnam-gu
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu219 delivered on October 28, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
In imposing and collecting the local tax and the same defense tax, Article 25 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate the basis for calculating the tax amount in a notice of tax payment in accordance with Article 25 of the same Act. Therefore, a tax disposition based on a notice of tax payment omitted on the basis of calculating the tax amount is subject to cancellation as it violates the mandatory provisions, and thus, even if the defendant was at a disadvantage to make the same tax assessment, the revocation of the above tax disposition cannot be deemed as significantly contrary to the public welfare (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu664 delivered on June 12, 1984).
In this view, the decision of the court below that revoked the instant taxation disposition is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing or incomplete reasoning. The argument is groundless.
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 Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)