The nature of the duty payment notice on inheritance tax, etc. for which payment by annual installments is permitted (=collection disposition) and whether the said notice can be subject to administrative litigation (affirmative)

For an inheritance tax, etc. on which payment by annual installments is permitted, a tax payment notice is a collection disposition to inform the taxpayer of the tax amount to be paid for a specific annual installment payment and to order the performance of such tax obligation among the taxes that have already been imposed on the taxpayer, which is to be paid for by annual installments, and thus, it does not have an effect of changing the rights and obligations of the taxpayer already imposed. However, the tax collection disposition may be subject to administrative litigation as a disposition prior to the disposition of collection, which is a disposition of collection of the inheritance tax, etc., in which payment by annual installments is permitted. In such a case where there is a defect, such as the tax payment notice is different from the permitted tax amount by annual installments or the due date by which payment by annual installments is paid or the tax payment by which

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu686 delivered on March 13, 1984 (Gong1984,739) 86Nu147 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986,3139) 90Nu1168 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong190,1288)

Plaintiff 1 and eight Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2996 delivered on November 22, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the ground that the defendant notified the deceased non-party's heir of the correction that he would pay the inheritance tax of this case and the defense tax of this case, and that the plaintiffs applied for payment by annual installments and permitted the defendant, and that the tax payment of this case was issued 10 days prior to the last permitted payment by annual installments, respectively. The collection disposition of this case by the plaintiffs is merely a procedure for again notifying the taxpayer of the tax amount and the tax payment deadline for the convenience of tax collection prior to the permitted payment by annual installments, and it does not result in a change in the taxpayer's rights and obligations. Thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition

2. To issue a tax payment notice on the inheritance tax, etc. for which payment by annual installments was already imposed on the taxpayer, and notify the taxpayer of the specific amount and its payment deadline among the taxes permitted for payment by annual installments, and there is no effect of changing the rights and obligations of the taxpayer already imposed by the tax payment order. However, the tax collection disposition is a disposition prior to the disposition of arrears, which is subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu686, Mar. 13, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu147, Oct. 28, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1168, May 8, 1990). If the tax payment notice or its payment deadline for payment by annual installments differs from the permitted amount and the tax payment by annual installments, or there is any defect in the tax disposition without any valid reason, the taxpayer who has received a tax payment notice as a collection disposition on the inheritance tax, etc. in which payment by annual installments was permitted, it shall be deemed that there is a legitimate interest in legal action.

3. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the nature of the collection disposition, and it is with merit to point this out.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)