Whether or not a request for examination on the notification of change in income amount and a disposition of tax payment notice are transferred;

The notification of change in the amount of income itself cannot be deemed a tax imposition disposition that is the object of a prior trial or an appeal litigation, but in case where a prior request for examination was made after the notification of change in amount of income was made, in a case where it was predicted that the disposition of tax payment notice will be inevitably followed after the notification of change in amount of income, if it is deemed that the examination agency accepted it, and then converted it into the request for examination on the propriety of the disposition of tax payment notice after the disposition of tax

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu442 delivered on January 24, 1984, 85Nu168 delivered on February 25, 1986

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu70 delivered on November 27, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's determination that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on December 9 of the same year on June 30, 1986, as well as each disposition of tax assessment as shown in attached Table 1-(1) through (5) of the judgment of the court below, and filed a request for examination against all of the above agencies at the Board of Audit and Inspection on August 10 of the same year, and that there was each disposition of tax assessment as stated in attached Table 1-(6) and (7), and that the defendant submitted a notice of tax assessment as stated in attached Table 1-(6) and (7) upon the request of the Board of Audit and Inspection for submission of evidentiary materials, etc. at the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the request for examination as to the whole on December 9 of the same year, and that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on January 20, 1987.

The above determination by the court below is just in accordance with the opinion of 83Nu442 delivered on January 29, 1984; 85Nu168 delivered on February 25, 1986; and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, although the defendant is erroneous for the fact-finding of the court below, it cannot be said that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process of its recognition. It cannot be argued or adopted.

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 Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)