[1] The case holding that a legitimate tax payment notice is not used in the name of "tax payment notice" after two months have elapsed from the date of the decision of correction of the amount to be imposed on a legitimate tax payment notice

[2] The case holding that the decision of the tax authority to conduct an estimated investigation on the business income from the price business is justifiable

[1] The case holding that the notification of the above decision of correction is legitimate, and that the above notification of the decision of correction was made two months after the date of the decision of correction, and that the validity is not affected even if the above notification was made after the lapse of two months from the date of the decision of correction, where the tax base, tax rate, amount, etc. were stated in the subsequent notification of correction of reduction

[2] The case holding that the tax authority's decision of estimated investigation is justifiable with respect to the business income from the price business

[1] Article 83 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5580 of Dec. 28, 1998); Article 149 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 1998); Articles 9 and 10 subparagraph 2 of the National Tax Collection Act / [2] Article 80 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5580 of Dec. 28, 1998); Article 143 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2830 delivered on October 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1815), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19352 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1493), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2917 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3184 delivered on February 27, 1998) (Gong198Sang, 931)

Plaintiff

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2002Nu2339 delivered on October 31, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. The defendant notified the plaintiff of the comprehensive income tax on August 10, 1997 and 1998 by a tax payment notice stating the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, grounds for calculation, payment deadline, etc. The defendant lawfully notified the tax base, tax rate, and tax amount. After that, the type of taxable income changed from interest income to business income, the amount of such taxable income shall be changed to 121,393,891 won as of December 21, 2001, and the amount of such tax shall be 176,505,544 won as of February 20, 202 after the decision of correction was made to the plaintiff on February 20, 2002, which stated the tax base, tax rate, tax rate, and tax amount of the above corrective disposition as "the decision of correction of the lawsuit case was lawful," but the above correction notice should not affect the above tax payment notice by 20 months.

In light of the relevant laws and records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to notification of decision of reduction correction, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the principal and interest were not recovered from the auction procedure for the real estate to which some of the bonds of this case were provided as collateral, due to the lack of dividend order, failure to pay bills as collateral, the debtor's missing, etc., and that the amount of income to be recovered was unlawful if the above amount of income was deducted from the income, without using an on-site investigation method, despite the absence of income, it was unlawful for the plaintiff to calculate the amount of income through an on-site investigation method. As long as the plaintiff lent 1,497,00,000 won to the non-party 1 and the non-party 24 debtors as collateral or to put up a joint guarantor and interest on each of the above loans, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 24 were not subject to an on-site investigation and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not subject to the collection of the amount of interest accrued from the auction procedure.

In light of the relevant laws and records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of total income amount or the bad debt subject to inclusion in necessary expenses, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)