A. Whether a taxation disposition imposed by misunderstanding the legal relations or factual relations which are subject to taxation is null and void as a matter of course (negative)

B. Whether the subsequent taxation becomes null and void as a result of the fact that the non-taxation notice was given

A. A taxation disposition conducted on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations (income or act) subject to taxation shall be deemed to be clear and serious. However, in a case where there are objective reasons to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it can be clarified as a result of an accurate investigation of the facts, the determination of whether it is subject to taxation cannot be deemed to be clear even if the erroneous defect is serious. Thus, if the mistake of it is obvious that it is subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed to be apparent that the taxation disposition can not be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, and only can be revoked if it is imposed on the Plaintiff (A)'s assertion that it purchased the real estate in this case is merely a legal relation or factual relations of the subject of taxation, but it is apparent that it was a donation, and whether it is a transaction or not, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is objectively unlawful even if there is any error by mistake of the taxation requirements, and thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute a ground for revocation.

B. Non-taxation notice is in accordance with the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax, which is an order issued by the National Tax Service for the purpose of improving administrative efficiency, and in this case, the defendant was aware that the acquisition value of the plaintiff (A) was only KRW 20,345,504, which is the sum of the acquisition value of the plaintiff (A), and was treated as non-taxation, and thereafter, determined that the defendant imposed the gift tax in this case by examining that the gift value was KRW 55,208,100, and thus, it is deemed that the defendant's non-taxation notice in accordance with the internal regulations of the defendant was withdrawn or cancelled by this case. Only if the non-taxation decision or its notice was made, there is no ground for the

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act: Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu237 delivered on November 27, 1979 delivered on September 27, 1962, 81Nu225 delivered on November 24, 1981

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu595 delivered on January 20, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal No. 1

A tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual basis (income or act) shall be deemed to be clear and serious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead him as to any legal relation or factual basis which is not subject to the tax, and where it is possible to accurately investigate the factual basis, if it can only be clarified whether it is subject to the tax, it cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the mistake of it is serious, and thus, the erroneous tax disposition cannot be deemed to be null and void as it is unreasonable.

In this regard, a party member cannot be deemed as null and void if he misleads the legal relations or factual relations of the subject matter of taxation and imposes taxes, and it is merely a mere cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Nu29, Sept. 27, 1962; 79Nu237, Nov. 24, 1981; 81Nu225, Nov. 24, 1981). Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above disposition of real estate should not be viewed as unlawful because it is not erroneous for the court below's determination that the plaintiff 1 purchased or sold the above real estate with the trade name of ○○ Pharmaceutical, which is "○○○ Pharmaceutical," and it cannot be viewed as an unlawful determination that the plaintiff 1 purchased or sold the above real estate for the purpose of management of ○○ Pharmaceutical affairs or its collateral. Thus, the court below's determination that the above disposition of real estate cannot be viewed as unlawful for the plaintiff 2 to have no errors of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff 1's gift.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant already made a non-taxation decision as to most of the real estate of this case, the disposition of this case was made to the plaintiffs who are not liable for tax payment, and the notification of non-taxation as to the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case is null and void is in accordance with the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax, which is the instructions of the National Tax Service, enacted for the purpose of improving administrative efficiency, etc., and the defendant is justified in holding that the property acquired by the plaintiff 1 as of July 25, 1975 is only the land and buildings of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), Busan ( Address 2 omitted), and the land and buildings of Seongdong-gu, Seoul ( Address 3 omitted), and that of Seongdong-gu, Seoul ( Address 20,345,504 won), and that the value was only 20,345,504 won in total, and then the defendant did not have any grounds for non-taxation decision or revocation of the tax exemption decision.

2. The plaintiffs' second ground for appeal

The issue of whether the defect in the taxation disposition is significant and obvious must be decided by the taxation cause according to the contents of the taxation disposition in question. Thus, it is related to the case where the business detailed and disposition were conducted on the premise that the person who does not engage in a certain business such as alcoholic beverage sales, etc. conducts the pertinent business, and it is obvious that the reason for taxation does not exist objectively. As in this case, it is not related to the case where there is an objective reason to mislead the facts that cause for taxation exists, and it is not appropriate in this case. The argument is groundless.

3. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

The gist of the reasons seems to be that among the facts supporting the plaintiffs' claims, the plaintiffs' assertion that they would have intentionally rendered the disposition, i.e., by knowing that they did not have any gift relationship, is included in the facts leading to the grounds for invalidation of the disposition of this case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the plaintiffs' alleged facts which were the grounds for claim, thereby omitting judgment or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for invalidation of administrative disposition. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above assertion was included in light of the records, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)