(a) Effectiveness of confirmation of tax liability in imposing method taxes, such as property tax;

(b) Where the tax authority issues a tax payment notice with the intention of disposing of an increase or decrease in property tax and defense tax for a given period of time, and only the remainder of the amount offsetting the excessive or deficient amount of tax at any time during the pertinent year without any indication by which such intent can be known, the validity of such disposition for imposition;

(c) Where some of the matters requested by the Local Tax Act are omitted in a local tax payment notice, whether the disposition for imposition is unlawful;

(a) With respect to taxes in the same imposition method as property tax, when the tax authority examines and determines the tax base and the amount of tax (including the decision of correction), the final determination shall become effective only when the tax liability is specifically confirmed, but when the decision is notified to the taxpayer, and when the decision is notified by the tax notice, it shall become effective as stated in the tax notice;

B. In a case where the tax authority imposed and collected property tax and defense tax from time to time in the corresponding year on the intent of offsetting the remainder of the excessive and insufficient tax amount for the pertinent period, and written only the remaining amount offset by the excessive and insufficient tax amount for the pertinent period without stating the tax base, tax amount, and grounds for calculation corresponding to the relevant tax notice, even if the tax authority served a tax payment notice with the intent to issue an increase or a decrease in the property tax and defense tax for the pertinent period, it cannot be deemed that the tax authority’s effect takes place as an increase or a decrease in the property tax and defense tax imposition disposition for the pertinent period, and rather, as indicated, it shall take effect only as an occasional and defense tax imposition disposition.

C. In full view of the provisions of Articles 1(1) and (5), 25(1), and 190 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a local tax payment notice shall be based on a tax payment notice stating the year to which the local tax is to be paid belongs, the grounds for imposition, the tax base, the tax rate, the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and other relevant matters. Since the above provisions are compulsory provisions, if there are defects in omitting some of the above provisions required by the above Acts and subordinate statutes

(a) Article 30. (b) of the Local Tax Act; Article 1.1.5, Article 25(1), and Article 190 of the Local Tax Act; Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu723 decided Oct. 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3129) 89Nu176 decided Jul. 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1725) decided Jun. 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1987)

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1568 delivered on December 22, 1992

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu1024 delivered on March 2, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Where a reduction or a correction disposition is taken after the initial disposition, the original disposition was entirely revoked, and the original disposition was not a disposition with an effect to determine specific tax liabilities as to the balance, but only with the effect of cancelling part of the original disposition. Thus, whether the previous disposition is implemented is identical to the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu391 delivered on September 13, 1991). However, with respect to taxes on the method of imposition such as property tax, the tax liability becomes specific when the investigation and confirmation of tax base and the amount of tax are determined (including the decision of correction) by the tax authority, but the final decision becomes effective when the decision is notified to the taxpayer, and if the notice of decision is made by the tax notice, it becomes effective as stated in the tax notice.

However, according to the facts and records admitted by the court below, the defendant imposed and collected property tax, etc. on the land of this case held by the plaintiff from 1984 to 1989 as at the time of original adjudication, and imposed and collected property tax, etc. on the land of this case for the above six years, as at the time of original adjudication, and the rate of reduction and exemption of property tax prescribed by foreign capital laws was erroneously applied to the property tax, etc. on the land of this case for the above six years, as at the time of original adjudication, and the amount was less than the amount in 1984, 1988, 1989, and the portion in 1985 to 1987 was collected, and as at the time of imposing the underpaid amount, the defendant filed a request for review on September 16, 1989 as at the time of offsetting the amount of the property tax, the tax base, and calculation basis for the annual imposition, and the remaining amount of the property tax of this case for 19 years and 19 years thereafter.

In light of the above circumstances, even if the Defendant issued the instant tax payment notice with the intent to either increase or decrease the property tax and defense tax for the above six years, without any indication from the Defendant’s awareness of such intent, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax payment notice becomes effective as an increase or a decrease in the property tax and defense tax imposition for the above six years, as indicated by the Defendant’s intent. Rather, as indicated, an occasional imposition of property tax and defense tax on September 19, 1989 must take effect only as it was imposed. However, since the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant tax imposition and received the procedure of the previous trial within the exclusion period under Article 58(1) of the Local Tax Act, the instant lawsuit was eventually conducted through legitimate procedure of the previous trial.

As the defendant's argument, the representative director of the plaintiff company received prior notice of tax base, etc. for the year to which he belongs from the public official in charge before the notice of tax payment of this case, and confirmed it in writing does not change.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the reasons and grounds for the imposition of additional tax, such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

With respect to the second and third points

In full view of the provisions of Articles 1(1) and (5), 25(1), and 190 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a local tax payment notice shall be imposed upon a tax payment notice stating the year for which the local tax is to be paid, the basis for imposition, the tax base, the tax rate, the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the basis for calculating the amount of tax. Since the above provisions are compulsory provisions, if there is any defect in which part of the matters required by the above Acts and subordinate statutes are omitted, the disposition for tax payment shall be deemed to be unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu723, Oct. 28, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu404, Feb. 9, 198; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu176, Jul. 10, 190).

However, as seen above, on September 16, 1989, the defendant imposed property tax and defense tax for the plaintiff on Sep. 16, 1989 on the plaintiff on an occasional installment, and did not state at all the tax base, tax amount, and basis of calculation for each taxable year belonging to the notice of tax payment, even though they differ each year from each tax base and tax amount for each taxable year for the above six years. However, the above notice of tax payment is not sufficient to make it possible for the taxpayer to know in detail of the details of the disposition of tax payment. The representative director of the plaintiff company received a prior notice of tax base, etc. for each taxable year belonging to the public official in charge of tax payment prior to the notice of tax payment, and even if it was confirmed in writing, such defect cannot be cured. Thus, the disposition of tax payment of this case is unlawful.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a duty payment notice, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as a reason or a mistake in the reasoning.

In addition, as long as the disposition of this case is unlawful due to the defect in the duty payment notice, it is unnecessary for the court below to determine whether the ratio of tax reduction or exemption under the Foreign Capital Inducement Act applied by the defendant in the disposition of this case is legitimate. Thus, the court below did not review and determine this point at all, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements of tax reduction or exemption or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by failing to exhaust all necessary reasons.

All arguments are without merit.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)