(a) The determination of liability to pay national taxes by method of imposition and the time such liability takes effect;

(b) The impact of the defect in the notification of imposition on the taxation disposition, where the notification of imposition was made by the tax payment notice.

(a) With respect to the assessment method of national tax, when the tax authority has determined the assessment standard and the amount of tax, the duty to pay taxes specifically determined, or its final determination shall enter into force when the decision has been notified to the taxpayer;

B. With respect to the national tax imposition method, the notice of imposition of tax constitutes a part of the taxation disposition, and the defect of the notification act becomes the defect of the taxation disposition immediately. Therefore, in a case where the tax authority notifies the payment order in the collection procedure without separately notifying the decision of imposition, the notice of tax payment also includes the nature of the taxation disposition notified, and the nature of the collection disposition ordering the payment of the determined amount of tax, and thus, the defect of the above notification act becomes the defect of both the imposition

Articles 21 and 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on February 28, 1984, 83Nu679 delivered on June 26, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu219 delivered on January 19, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court ordered the revocation of the instant global income tax and defense detailed and disposition, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the relevant tax payment notice does not fully state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, and thus

(2) The tax right shall be exercised through two stages of taxation and collection, and the tax shall mean the procedure to specifically determine the liability for tax payment established abstractly, and the collection shall be ordered to perform the determined liability for tax payment and the procedure to receive or enforce it. As for the national tax in the method of imposition, the tax liability shall be specifically determined when the tax authority determines the tax base and tax amount verified by the tax authority, or its confirmation shall take effect when the decision is notified to the taxpayer.

Therefore, since the notification of such decision constitutes a part of the taxation disposition, the defect of the notification act becomes the defect of the taxation disposition immediately, and in the event that the taxation authority notifies the payment order in the collection procedure without separately notifying the notification of the imposition, it also has the nature of the notification of the taxation disposition and the nature of the collection order ordering the payment of the determined amount of tax. Therefore, it is clear that the defect of the notification is both the defect of the taxation disposition and the collection disposition, and it is nothing more than the defect of the collection disposition.

However, according to Article 128 of the Income Tax Act and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the government shall provide that taxpayers shall be notified of tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters determined by Articles 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act, and the method of notification shall be written in a tax notice. Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, a tax notice shall specify the year, tax item, tax amount, and calculation basis.

According to the above provisions, the tax base and tax rate for the taxpayer. The notice of the tax amount and other necessary matters such as the basis for calculation of the tax amount are the acts of notifying the tax imposition as seen above and dealt with a part of the disposition of imposition. Thus, each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the contents and method of the notice shall be deemed to be a mandatory provision concerning the disposition of imposition, not a mere decoration on the disposition of collection. If there is any defect in the notification required by each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes which omitted some of the above provisions, the disposition of imposition

In addition, Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulate that a taxpayer may be allowed to peruse or copy the investigation decision or related documents of the tax authority. However, it is clear that the above statutory provision that orders the taxpayer to specify the tax base, tax amount, and other necessary matters in the notice of the decision to impose on the taxpayer for the reason that the opportunity to peruse or copy is guaranteed. It is apparent that the above statutory provision is not only a simple decoration provision, such as a lawsuit, in light of the nature of the above notice.

In addition, since notification of lack of part of the above notification can not be deemed a legitimate notification of imposition, it is illegal for the taxation disposition itself. Thus, the illegality of the taxpayer can not be determined or cured depending on whether the taxpayer actually becomes aware of the tax base and amount of tax, etc. and led to the litigation.

In addition, the defendant did not claim the above illegality in the pre-trial procedure, and the defendant asserted it later in the appeal litigation procedure, and it cannot be deemed as an addition of the cause of claim without identity as in the theory of the lawsuit, which goes against the precedents of the timely party members.

(3) Ultimately, we do not agree with the reasoning of the judgment below that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the modification of the legal principles and claims under Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(4) The issue is that even if the instant disposition lacks the description of the tax base, etc., if the substance of the disposition is legitimate, it would ultimately be appropriate for the public welfare to pay the tax of this case, and that revocation of the disposition of this case should have dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in accordance with Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, as it is not suitable for public welfare. If the Defendant issued the same disposition through the process of form, then it would be possible for all the Defendant to go through the process of litigation, and it would result in only financial, time, and mental waste, and there is no practical benefit in the lawsuit.

However, it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of an administrative disposition that lacks legitimate requirements, such as the instant disposition, constitutes a case where it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. The Defendant’s own knowledge of the defect in the disposition, or even if having known the defect in the disposition, continues a dispute without setting the time, thereby denying the interest in the lawsuit on the ground of economic, time, and mental waste is merely an exclusive theory on the sole basis of the foregoing issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

The transfer of a judge of the Supreme Court is impossible to sign and seal due to retirement.