(a) Whether the additional tax under Article 22 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act may be imposed on the disguised registered business operator;

(b) Effects of taxation by a taxpayer based on a timely certificate of the omission in sales, etc.

(c) Where a taxpayer fails to enter a relationship between the written notice and the tax payment notice when issuing a multiple tax payment notices by taxable period, the validity of such tax payment notice;

A. In light of the provisions of Article 22(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the unpaid additional tax, and Article 6(5) of the same Act, and Article 7(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where so-called disguised registration is made by an actual business operator under the name of another person, it may not be construed as a ground provision imposing additional tax on the disguised business operator, and there is no ground for imposing additional tax as a sanction for disguised registration differently under the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. If a written confirmation is based on the fact that a taxpayer has failed to make a sales, etc. and the written confirmation is based on the fact, the tax authority may consider the written confirmation as data for taxation, even if it has prepared such a document by making it difficult for the taxpayer to take measures, such as accusation, if the taxpayer denies the omission of sales.

C. The taxation authority’s issuance of multiple tax payment notices by taxable period is lawful and it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that a tax payment notice did not state the tax year, tax item, tax amount, grounds for calculation thereof, payment deadline, place of payment, etc. on each of the above tax payment notices.

(a) Articles 6 and 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu347 delivered on January 29, 1985, 85Nu213 delivered on November 12, 1985

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Kim Nam-jin

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu488,489,880 decided Feb. 21, 1986

1. Of the judgment below, the defendant's value-added tax amounting to the plaintiff on July 3, 1984 297,200 (the second half-year amount), gold amounting to 415,950 won (the first half-year amount in 80), gold amounting to 49,870 won (the second half-year amount in 80), gold amounting to 568,250 won (the first half-year amount in 81), gold amounting to 17,978,170 won (the second half-year amount in 81), gold amounting to 567,530 won (the first half-year amount in 82), gold amounting to 884,650 won (the first half-year amount in 82), gold amounting to 914,170 won (the first half-year amount in 83), gold amounting to 1,121,100 won (the first half-year amount in 283 years), the first half-year amount in 184.

2. The plaintiff's remaining tax disposition is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

Article 22 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount equivalent to 1/100 for an individual and 2/100 for a corporation shall be added to the amount of tax payable for the supply price from the date of commencing the business to the date of preliminary return (the taxable period concerned where the preliminary return period has expired) to which the date of application for registration belongs, if a new business operator fails to apply for registration within the period stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the same Act. However, in light of the language and text, Article 6 (5) of the same Act and Article 7 (3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the case of so-called disguised registration of which a business operator registers his business under another person, the amount of additional tax cannot be interpreted as a basis provision imposing penalty on the actual business operator, and there is no basis for imposing additional tax as a sanction for disguised registration differently under the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu347, Nov. 12, 1985).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on imposition of additional tax on unregistered registration against the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff can impose additional tax on the disguised registered business operator under his/her name on the premise that the plaintiff actually engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electrical appliances, and that the defendant's disposition of imposing additional tax on the plaintiff was lawful. Thus, there is reason to argue that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on imposition of additional tax on false registered business operator.

2. On the second and fourth points:

According to the court below's decision, if a tax official belonging to the defendant et al. conducts an investigation into the factory's internal business of the plaintiff management company on January 22, 1982 during the business trip of the second half year 1981, the right to faithfully report the return of the value-added tax, and received a confidential statement and received a confidential statement of accounts, and then the plaintiff must voluntarily destroy the above confidential statement of accounts. The above tax official's request the plaintiff to prepare a certificate of confidential statement of accounts as the defendant's office on the 27th of the same month, based on the above confidential statement of accounts, and the plaintiff must prepare a written statement of accounts and purchase amount each month from July 1, 1981 to December 12 of the same year, and the court below's determination that the above tax official omitted statement of accounts based on the above written statement of accounts based on the evidence' evidence's findings that the plaintiff violated the above tax assessment rules and omitted statement of accounts. Thus, the court below's determination that the above tax official's additional statement of accounts for the above tax assessment year is legitimate.

3. On the third ground for appeal

(1) If there are omissions or errors in the tax base and amount of tax after the tax disposition, the tax authority may correct them, and if the tax authority issued multiple tax payment notices to taxpayers for each taxable period, it is lawful to issue them, and if the tax year, tax item, amount of tax, grounds for calculation of the tax amount, deadline for payment, place for payment, etc. are indicated in the above tax payment notice, the tax office did not specify the relation between the notice and the tax payment notice, and if the tax authority stated the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the tax payment notice, it cannot be deemed unlawful to deduct the amount of tax already imposed

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's disposition of global income tax, etc. imposed on the plaintiff on June 1, 1984 and the disposition of global income tax, etc. imposed on the 19th of the same month and each of the value-added tax imposed on July 3, 1984 on the 12th of the same year was illegal under the same premise. It is without merit.

In addition, according to the records, it is apparent that the defendant's error in the calculation basis of the tax amount as stated in the notice of tax payment is made in imposing and assessing global income tax on the plaintiff on June 1, 1984, but it is clear that it is an error in the calculation itself, and in such a case, it cannot be said that the above notice of tax payment is illegal. Thus, there is no reason for misunderstanding the above.

(2) As the judgment of the court below duly confirmed, the defendant's disposition of global income tax, etc. on June 1, 1984 and the 19th of the same month pertaining to the portion belonging to the 1981 year, and each disposition of value-added tax on July 3 of the same year and December 1 of the same year pertaining to the taxable period from the second half to the first half of the year 1979 to the first half of the year 1984, and there is no reason to argue that the above disposition of global income tax was unlawful before the expiration of the period for voluntary declaration.

4. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the defendant's imposition of non-registered additional tax on July 3, 1984 was imposed on the plaintiff, 297,200 won of value-added tax (29 installments), 415,950 won of value-added tax (80 installments), 49,870 won (80 installments), 568,250 won (81 installments), 567,530 won (82 installments), 884,650 won (82 installments), 914, 170 won (83 installments), 41, 621, 100 won of value-added tax (83 installments), 42, 100 won of value-added tax (82 won of value-added tax), 567,530 won of tax (82 won of tax disposition), 587,650 won of the final appeal against the plaintiff, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be reversed for 13 years and 184 years of tax imposition.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)