(a) Scope of cure and conversion of defects in administrative actions;

(b) Whether the taxation by a tax payment notice has been revoked based on which the basis for calculating the amount of tax was omitted;

C. Whether the revocation of a taxation disposition by a person liable to pay the fish volume tax constitutes a case where the public welfare is not appropriate

(d) Requirements for healing of defective taxation by a tax payment notice wherein the basis for calculating the amount of tax is omitted.

A. Although the recovery or conversion of defective administrative act is not permissible in principle from the perspective of the nature of administrative act or the rule of law, it should be recognized in accordance with specific circumstances to the extent that it does not infringe upon the rights and interests of the people when avoiding the repetition of administrative act and allowing it for the legal stability of the parties.

B. The provision that a tax notice should be given by attaching the tax base, tax rate, calculation statement, etc. at the time of a tax disposition is to ensure fairness in tax administration by inducing the disposition authority to exclude, prudent and reasonable disposition in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law, and at the same time, to ensure convenience in the decision of objection and appeal by clearly notifying the taxpayer of the details of the disposition, and thus, such provision is a mandatory provision, and if the above written provision is omitted, the taxation disposition itself is subject to revocation by unlawful means.

C. "When it is deemed that the public welfare is not significantly appropriate" as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to the case where the direct welfare of the general public is hindered due to administrative action based on the national governing power and it is obvious that it is detrimental to it. Since the plaintiff is obligated to pay taxes, it cannot be said that the cancellation of illegal taxation is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare on the sole ground that it causes only economic, time, and mental waste due to the recovery of dance tax disposition.

D. If the tax base, tax rate, and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax were omitted in the tax notice at the time of the tax disposition, the defect must be corrected at the latest within a reasonable period that could provide convenience in filing an objection. As such, it cannot be deemed that the defect of the tax disposition was cured after the lapse of four years from the date of the tax disposition, and the revised tax notice was served after the lapse of a long period (four years).

A. Article 1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act: Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 12(d) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139 Decided March 23, 1982, 80Nu527 Decided April 26, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu55 Decided April 26, 1983

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 79Gu51 delivered on July 13, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to Article 62(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a request for review must be made to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service through the head of the tax office who has to make or have to make the request for review stating the matters notified or the contents of the disposition, the reasons for appeal, etc., of the claimant's address or domicile, name and the date (if the notice of disposition was received, the date of receipt), or the date of notification of the disposition, or the details of the disposition, and the reasons for appeal. Therefore, even according to the theory itself, it is clear that the plaintiff's request for review of this case was not clearly stated in the separate list of the judgment below, and it is clear that the court below did not clearly state it with regard to the taxation of 10,11,12, the request for review of this case was made without going through the procedure of the request for review as stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it cannot be deemed that there is a legitimate ground for revocation of the lawsuit, and there is no reason to hold the Supreme Court's precedent in

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, ex officio, held that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not undergo a legitimate request for examination as to the taxation disposition as stipulated in Gap evidence 27-1, 27-2, and Gap evidence 28-1, 28-3, and the previous purport of the pleading, and that the Plaintiff did not undergo a legitimate request for examination as to the taxation disposition as stated in the separate list of the lower judgment. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the previous trial procedure

2. In the administrative litigation, unless otherwise provided for in the Administrative Litigation Act, the litigation structure shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, and even in the administrative litigation, the litigation structure shall be governed by the party principle, the disposal right principle, and the pleading principle. Thus, the plaintiff shall not be employed as its own opinion on the ground that the court below did not ask the court below as to the application for modification of claim submitted to the court below as of February 18, 1980, whether or not the plaintiff did not consider it as having made a statement or not.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers

1. At the beginning of the administrative act, when the defects constituting an illegal cause of the administrative act have been corrected by a subsequent completion of the administrative act or by some circumstances, the defect is cured and the illegal administrative act can be converted into a lawful and effective administrative act. However, in light of the nature of the administrative act or the rule of law, in principle, the cure of defective administrative act cannot be permitted, and even in permitting it, it should be combined with specific circumstances to the extent that it does not infringe the rights and interests of the people.

2. According to the decision of the court below, the defendant issued the tax disposition in this case against the plaintiff three times in July 5, 1978 and August 8, 17 of the same year (However, the part in which the tax disposition in this case was rejected) and without stating the tax base, tax rate, basis of calculation of tax amount, etc. in the tax disposition, and issued it, but the plaintiff filed the administrative lawsuit in this case where the plaintiff sought revocation of the tax disposition in this case after going through the procedure of objection such as request for review, etc., and served the plaintiff again with the tax notice stating the tax base, tax rate, and basis of calculation of the tax amount.

The purpose of the Corporate Tax Act, etc., which provides that a notice shall be given by attaching the tax base and calculation statement, etc. to the taxation disposition is not a mere provision based on the convenience of tax administration, but rather a provision based on the principle of no taxation without law as prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby ensuring fairness in tax administration by allowing the disposition authority to exclude, exercise caution and reasonable disposition, and at the same time, at the same time, allowing taxpayers to make a decision on whether they are dissatisfied with the tax disposition and make their convenience in filing an objection. Such a provision is a mandatory provision, and if the same is omitted in the tax disposition, the taxation disposition itself becomes unlawful and defective, and thus, it is subject to cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139, Mar. 23, 1982). Thus, it is difficult for the court below to find this defect as a result of a series of procedures to determine and notify the amount of tax, and thus, it is difficult to say that the court below’s decision on the tax disposition should be justified to rectify the defect of the taxation disposition and to correct the appeal.

4. As to ground of appeal No. 2 by the same defendant litigation performer

When it is deemed that the public welfare stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is significantly inappropriate for the reason that the cancellation of the tax disposition in this case cannot be deemed to be significantly inappropriate for the public welfare, and therefore it cannot be deemed that the direct welfare of the general public in the administrative action based on the national governing power is hindered and that the illegal tax disposition is significantly appropriate for the public welfare, and it cannot be deemed that it is not appropriate for the public welfare, and that it is not the case where the illegal tax disposition is merely the direct interest of a certain individual, and that it cannot be dealt with from the national financial point of view, such as tax revenue, etc., in the case of the Republic of Korea in accordance with the tax legal principle. Therefore, there is no reason to dispute the independent opinion.

5. As to the third ground for appeal by the same defendant litigation performer

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the defendant's assertion that the defect of the taxation disposition in this case was cured, the court below is ordinarily cured of the defect of the administrative disposition due to supplementation of the defect, ratification of the administrative agency concerned, the attainment of administrative purpose due to the prolonged neglect of administrative disposition, the confirmation of legal relations, etc., or the confirmation of legal relations, etc., but it should be viewed that the purport of the above provision on the basis of calculation basis of tax rate, etc. is to secure fairness in tax administration and to provide the taxpayer with convenience in the decision on whether to object to the taxation disposition, and the objection to the appeal. Thus, it is hard to see that the defect of each taxation disposition in this case was cured due to the lapse of the delivery of the tax payment notice or the long-term (4 years) as alleged by the defendant. Thus, it cannot

6. Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed on the ground that all of the appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)