Kim Jong-hee (Attorney Kim Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Namgu Tax Office

October 12, 1982

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on January 9, 1981, the imposition of additional tax and increased additional tax 16,091,525 won in 1978 and 1979 shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) On the other hand, the defendant decided that the above amount of tax imposed on Gap's 1-1, 2, 4-1, 1-2, 8-1 to 8-2 and the above amount of tax imposed on Gap's 1-2, 2-1, 3-2, 98-1, 78-1, 197-2, 1978-2, 1978-2, 97-1, 197-2, 1977-1, 197-2, 97-1, 197-2, 97-1, 197-2, 97-1, 197-1, 197-2, 97-1, 197-2, 197-1, 197-2, 197-3, 196-1, 197-2, 197

(2) The plaintiff's attorney notified the plaintiff as to this issue without notifying the tax base and tax rate under Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, such taxation disposition is null and void, and this additional tax and increased additional tax were imposed on the premise of null and void taxation. Even if the defendant did not do so on May 12, 1981, it was a new taxation disposition by the method of additional tax assessment under Article 128 of the same Act. Thus, the defendant did not pay the above additional tax within the original time limit for payment. The plaintiff's new tax assessment under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act cannot be viewed as null and void because the defendant did not notify the plaintiff's initial tax base and tax rate under Article 183 (1) of the same Act within the original time limit for payment. Thus, the plaintiff's new tax assessment under Article 181 of the same Act cannot be viewed as invalid because the defendant did not notify the plaintiff's new tax assessment under the above provision.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

November 2, 1982

Judge Lee Dong-soo (Presiding Judge)