(a) Time when the liability for tax payment arises in imposing tax;

B. The meaning of defects in the decision to impose tax by notice of tax payment

(c) Nature and effect of violation of regulations concerning notification to taxpayers of tax base, etc.;

(d) Where he becomes aware of the tax base, etc. later or any defect in the notice of imposition decision is cured;

E. The meaning of defects in an act of notification in the withholding income tax

(f) Omission and effect of entries in notice of tax payment;

(g) A tax imposition disposition and assessment judgment by an entity which fall under a ground for revocation due to a formal defect;

A. The right to taxation is exercised at two stages of the procedure for specifically determining the tax liability established abstractly and the procedure for collecting taxes by issuing an order for the performance of the determined tax liability, and in the case of a national tax by means of imposition, the tax liability is specifically fixed at the time when the tax authority determines the tax base and the amount of tax, or its confirmation becomes effective when the decision is notified to the taxpayer.

B. A notice of tax imposition is a part of a taxation disposition, and its defect is immediately the defect of the taxation disposition. In a case where the tax authority issues a notice of tax imposition through a notice of tax payment, which is a payment order in the collection procedure, the notice of tax payment also has the nature of the taxation disposition and the nature of the collection disposition. Therefore, the defect of the notice of tax imposition is nothing more than the defect of

C. The notification of the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters concerning the basis for calculation of the tax amount to taxpayers is part of the disposition of imposition. Therefore, the provisions of the tax law on the notification do not merely provide a decoration on the disposition of imposition but also have the nature of the mandatory provisions on the disposition of imposition. If there is any defect in the notification of the tax payment, the disposition of imposition is unlawful.

D. The defect in the disposition of taxation lacking part of the notified matters is not cured on the ground that the taxpayer, in fact, became aware of the tax base and amount of tax and so on.

(e) For income tax withheld at source, etc., tax liability shall be established at the time of payment of income or revenue amount, and a tax payment notice by a tax authority shall be deemed a collection disposition, and thus, the omission of a part of matters necessary for the tax payment notice constitutes a defect of collection disposition

F. The tax notice of income tax to be withheld indicates the tax base and tax amount automatically determined and the matters recognized by the tax authority, which is not a simple convenient entry but a necessary entry, and thus the collection disposition omitted is unlawful.

G. Although the substance is lawful, but it cannot be deemed that the revocation of an illegal tax imposition disposition due to a defect in the form constitutes “where it is substantially inappropriate for public welfare” as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, or it only causes economic, time, and mental waste.

(d)Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act. Article 21(f) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Article 142, Article 143 and Article 131 of the Income Tax Act. Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on March 13, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu722 delivered on March 13, 1984

Korean Textbook Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu decided November 10, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the defendant litigation performer.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disposition of imposition of corporate tax, business tax, income tax on Class C, interest income tax on Class A, and defense tax imposed by the defendant on the revenue and business income of each business year from February 25, 1974 to November 30, 1976 by the plaintiff corporation was unlawful since it did not specify the tax base, tax rate, and other tax base in the notice of tax payment, and ordered the revocation thereof.

(2) The right of taxation shall be exercised through two stages of taxation and collection, and the taxation shall mean the procedure to specifically determine the liability for tax payment established abstractly, and the procedure to order the performance of the established liability for tax payment and the receipt or compulsory collection thereof. As regards the national tax in the method of imposition, the tax liability shall be specifically fixed when the tax authority determines the tax base and amount of tax, or its confirmation shall become effective when the decision is notified to the taxpayer.

Therefore, the notification of such decision constitutes a part of the taxation disposition, and the defect of the notification act becomes the defect of the taxation disposition immediately. Thus, in a case where the taxation authority notifies the payment order in the collection procedure without separately notifying the decision, it also has the nature of the notification of the taxation disposition and the nature of the collection order ordering the payment of the finalized amount of tax. Therefore, it is clear that the defect of the notification cannot be said to be merely the defect of the collection disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 37 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 32 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 128 of the same Act and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the Government makes a decision to impose corporate tax, business tax, or income tax, it shall require taxpayers to notify the tax base, tax rate, or other necessary matters (in cases of corporate tax, attaching specifications of calculation and retained earnings) and the method of notification shall be stated in the tax notice. Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, a tax notice shall specify the year, tax item, tax amount, calculation basis

According to the above provisions, the notification of the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters concerning the basis for calculation of tax amount to the taxpayer constitutes an act of notification of imposition, as seen above, and thus, the above provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning notification are deemed to have the nature of mandatory provisions concerning imposition, not just a decoration provision concerning collection disposition, but also a mandatory provision concerning disposition of imposition. If there is any defect in the notification required by the above Acts and subordinate statutes which omitted some of the above provisions, the disposition of imposition shall not be deemed unlawful.

Furthermore, the above notification requires the tax authority to specify the grounds supporting the determination of imposition by the tax authority, such as the basis for calculation of tax base and amount of tax in addition to the tax base and amount of tax, and the details of calculation, etc., are as follows: (a) thereby ensuring the fairness of tax administration by allowing the tax authority to exclude and take prudent and reasonable disposition; and (b) at the same time, notifying the taxpayer of the details of the disposition of imposition and giving convenience in filing an objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139, Mar. 23, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu420, Jul. 26, 1983); and (c) it is more clear that the provision concerning the notification of the above notification of imposition may not be simply a decoration

In addition, Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulate that a taxpayer may be allowed to peruse or copy the investigation decision or related documents of the tax authority. However, it is clear that the above statutory provision that orders the taxpayer to specify the tax base, tax amount, and other necessary matters in the notice of the decision to impose on the taxpayer for the reason that the opportunity to peruse or copy is guaranteed. It is apparent that the above statutory provision is not only a simple decoration provision, such as a lawsuit, in light of the nature of the above notice.

In addition, since notification of lack of part of the above notification cannot be deemed to be a legitimate notification of imposition, the imposition disposition itself is unlawful. As such, as in the theory of lawsuit, whether the taxpayer has become aware of the tax base and amount of tax, etc. and led to the litigation cannot be decided or cured. Moreover, the defendant did not claim such illegality in the previous trial procedure, and the defendant delayed the appeal procedure. It cannot be deemed as an addition of the cause of claim without identity, such as the theory of lawsuit, which goes against the timely decision of party members.

(3) However, in case of withholding income tax, etc., the tax liability is established at the time of paying the income amount or revenue amount, and the tax payment notice is automatically determined at the same time, and thus, the tax payment notice is not the notice of imposition but the collection disposition for the withholding agent. Therefore, the omission of some of the tax base, tax amount, and other necessary matters in the tax payment notice constitutes a defect in the collection disposition. However, the above entries in the tax payment notice cannot be deemed a requisite entry requirement and a simple convenience entry requirement by indicating the tax authorities' approval on the tax base and tax amount automatically determined. Thus, it cannot be said that the collection disposition omitted part of the above mentioned matters

(4) Ultimately, we do not agree with the reasoning of the lower judgment that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal principles and changes in claims under Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as to the mutual relationship between the entire tax-related law system and the purpose and scope of application of each positive law.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

This paper argues that if the disposition of this case lacks the statement of tax base and other tax amount, if the substance of the disposition is legitimate, it is legitimate for the public welfare to pay the tax of this case ultimately, and the revocation of the disposition of this case in the form of defect is inappropriate for public welfare, and therefore, it should have dismissed the plaintiff's claim in accordance with Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. If the defendant conducts the same disposition by preparing the form of procedure, it would only cause the plaintiff's economic, time, and mental waste, and there is no practical benefit in the lawsuit.

However, it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of an administrative disposition that lacks legitimate requirements, such as the instant disposition, constitutes 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 does not know the defect of the disposition, but continues a dispute without setting it, thereby denying the interest in the lawsuit on the ground of economic, time, and mental waste, is merely an exclusive theory on the sole basis of its own.

3. 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 Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)