(a) Whether property tax is imposed in a lump sum for several years, and only the aggregate tax amount is indicated in the relevant tax payment notice without stating the year to which the tax is reverted and the annual tax base and tax amount (negative);

(b) Whether a disposition to impose property tax on residential land within one fence may specify the tax base and tax rate calculated by adding lots to each tax notice (affirmative)

A. The provisions of Articles 1(1)5, 25(1), and 190 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which stipulate that a local tax payment notice shall be issued based on a tax payment notice stating the year for which the local tax is to be paid, tax item, basis for imposition, tax base, tax rate, basis for calculation of the amount of tax, etc., shall be compulsory. In the case of a tax assessment, from 1982 to 1986, the annual tax base and tax amount are different each year from the tax assessment notice, and the tax base and tax amount are not indicated each year, and only five years are indicated, the above tax assessment notice shall be deemed unlawful.

B. Since property tax on land for residence in one fence is determined by the method of gradually dividing the area of land by 330 square meters after adding it to the area of land and then calculating the amount of tax and adding it to it, the tax base of individual land is not meaningful, and it is not applied to different tax rates by individual land. Thus, it is difficult to say that the method of entering a tax payment notice, which is listed in a lump sum without individually distinguishing the tax base of the above residential land by lots, is erroneous.

(a)Article 1(1)5, Article 25(1) and Article 190(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 8(1)1(i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu689 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Gong1986, 3049) 85Nu723 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3129)

Lee-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu978 delivered on December 1, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

Since the court below's finding Defendant as Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor is obvious that it is a clerical error in the Seoul Metropolitan Government head of Dongjak-gu, it is only a ground for correcting the judgment, not a ground for reversal of the judgment

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In full view of the provisions of Articles 1(1)5, 25(1), and 190 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a local tax payment notice shall be imposed upon a tax payment notice stating the year to which the local tax is to be paid belongs, items of taxation, grounds for imposition, tax base, tax rate, basis for calculation of tax amount, etc., and the above provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes are compulsory provisions. Thus, if there is any defect in which part of the matters required by the above Acts and subordinate statutes are omitted, the imposition disposition is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu689, Oct. 14, 1986; 85Nu723, Oct. 28, 1986). According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, the pertinent taxation notice shall be imposed on the land owned by the plaintiffs, and it shall be imposed on the Plaintiffs from 3/100 to 50/100 to 1986.

Therefore, the above written notice of tax payment alone is insufficient to allow a taxpayer to know the details of the tax disposition in detail, and the defendant's prior notice of tax payment (Evidence No. 4) or the prior notice of tax payment (Evidence No. 3), which was presented by the defendant prior to the tax disposition, contains the purport of collecting the property tax for five years without distinguishing the annual tax base or the amount of tax, the total amount, and the text of the relevant tax base legislation, etc. The above notice of tax payment is not erroneous. However, while the court below held that the property tax on the residential land within the one fence is erroneous by stating the tax base of the tax payment notice only the total amount of the tax base of the tax, but it is difficult to distinguish the tax rate and the method of calculating it by 330 square meters after adding up the area of the land, and thus, the individual land tax base of this case is not meaningful, and since no different tax rate is applied to each individual land, so it is difficult to distinguish the tax base of this case by lot as to the residential land and the method of tax payment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on this part of the judgment below is erroneous, but the above duty payment notice is unlawful except for this part as seen above. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and justified, and the conclusion is just and without merit.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won