(a) Whether a disposition revoking a tax payment notice is appropriate after an objection is raised only against the notice of change in income amount, which is a premise for the disposition of tax payment notice (negative

B. Whether the decision of recognition or notice of change in the amount of income constitutes a pre-trial procedure and a tax imposition disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

A. The plaintiff, who received the notice of change in income amount from the defendant (the chief of the office of final tax office), does not pay the withholding tax on the deemed loan, and the defendant issued the notice of change in income amount as to Gap-class earned income tax and defense tax payment notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an objection, which did not mention all of the above notice disposition, and asserted objection only against the notice of change in income amount or the decision of bonus payment as well as the subsequent request for examination and trial, if all of the circumstances are the same, then the part concerning the disposition of tax payment notice in the claim of this case, for which the plaintiff filed an administrative litigation and sought revocation, is unlawful, since it was obvious that the legitimate procedure of the previous trial

B. Determination on the basis of recognition or notification of change in the amount of income is merely a preliminary measure or prior procedure to establish and determine the withholding duty, and it is recognized that the withholding duty itself is established at the time of payment or deemed to have been made without waiting for a disposition of lower, etc., and thus, determination on the basis of recognition or notification of change in the amount of income cannot be deemed a disposition of tax assessment that is the subject of a prior trial or appeal litigation. This legal doctrine does not have any legal effect on the grounds that the legal effect of the special week between the payment of the amount of income and the commencement of the period for payment of the amount of income, which is recognized as a reflective effect

(a) Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 16 subparag. 8 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 5(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 21(1)1(c) of the Income Tax Act, Articles 127 and 128 of the same Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Head of the tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu386 delivered on September 5, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer is examined ex officio.

According to the records, the defendant's 17.2. 17. 17. 6. 6. 8. 6. 6. 8. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 8. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1. 1. 1. 8. 4. 1. 1. 1. 8, the plaintiff's notice of change in the amount of income to be regarded as belonging to the representative director of the plaintiff corporation, and the plaintiff's notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter "the notice of change in the amount of income") to the plaintiff's 9. 4. 1. 1. 6 years 1. 4. 1. 4. 1, the plaintiff's notice of change in the amount of income to be notified to the plaintiff's 9. 4. 6th 6th 6th 6th 1, 1981 . 1. 2, the plaintiff's notice of change in the amount of income tax claim or 96.

Therefore, the court below accepted the main claim and ordered revocation without reaching the judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit, even though the judgment on the legality of the lawsuit should be prior to the judgment on the disposition of the tax payment notice issued on April 3, 1981 among the claims in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the procedure of tax administrative litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)