Nature of regulations and effects of violation of regulations on notification of the basis of calculating the amount of tax;

The provisions of tax laws that require taxpayers to notify necessary matters, such as the tax base, tax rate, and basis for calculating the amount of tax, etc., are to ensure fairness in tax administration by inducing the disposition authority to exclude and take prudent and reasonable measures in accordance with the large principle of no taxation without law prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, and at the same time, to provide taxpayers with detailed information on the details of the disposition of imposition, thereby allowing them to make a decision on whether they are dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition and for their convenience in filing objections. In addition, if a tax notice lacks the information on the basis of

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 36 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 Decided March 13, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu686 Decided March 13, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu722 Decided March 13, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu711 Decided March 27, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu113 delivered on March 21, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the head of a tax office or the head of a Si/Gun intends to collect a national tax, he/she shall issue a taxpayer a written notice indicating the year of taxation, tax item, and amount of national tax, the grounds for calculation, tax payment deadline, and place for payment of the national tax, and Article 128 of the Income Tax Act and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the Government shall provide that a written notice stating the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters determined pursuant to Articles 117 through 120 shall be given by entering the relevant tax payment notice in a written notice. The above provisions are justifiable in the judgment below to the effect that the disposition authority must excludes the person from the disposition and make prudent and reasonable disposition in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby strictly applying to the person liable for tax payment by clearly notifying the details of the disposition of tax imposition and allowing convenience in filing an objection. If the grounds for taxation are omitted in the tax payment notice, it itself shall be subject to be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Nu.

2. The theory of lawsuit is merely a decoration provision, but even if it is possible to peruse the documents of taxation basis at the request of a taxpayer or a person who raises an objection, etc. pursuant to Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the theory that the above provision does not relate to the mandatory nature of the provisions of the law on the specification of the taxation basis as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the above provision is merely a decoration provision, and it cannot be accepted as it is an independent opinion. Furthermore, as long as the defendant's taxation disposition of this case violates the tax law, it should be revoked, and the defendant, who is the tax office, can again impose a legitimate imposition, can lead to the purpose of filing a lawsuit. Accordingly, the theory that the revocation is obviously inappropriate for the public welfare as defined in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is not acceptable.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)