Where a taxpayer is falsely indicated on a tax payment notice, the disposition shall be null and void.

In a case where there is no need to go through a separate pre-trial procedure, and where a taxpayer is indicated differently from the facts in a tax notice, even if the taxpayer confirmed the tax disposition after the tax disposition, the defect in the tax disposition can not be cured, and thus, it is null and void.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. As of May 18, 1991, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 4,903,560 and the defense tax amounting to KRW 980,710 against the Plaintiff is null and void. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

1. If the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and No. 4-1 and 2 show the whole purport of the pleading, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant determined the tax base and the amount of tax on global income from January 1, 1985 to March 15, 1985 by means of an estimated investigation and decision, and that the disposition of taxation stated in paragraph (1) of this Article was issued.

2. First, we examine this safety defense.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's request for review after the expiration of the period of the request for review even after receiving the notice of the tax disposition of this case, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it did not go through legitimate pre-trial

However, the plaintiff sought a judgment that the original taxation disposition was unlawful and revoked it, but it was also stated in the record that the plaintiff sought a judgment that confirmed the validity of the above taxation disposition on the third day of June 23, 1992. In this case, it is not necessary to go through the prior trial procedure prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

3.For the following merits:

First of all, the plaintiff asserts that the tax disposition in this case by the defendant is void as it is reasonable because there is a defect different from the fact of the taxpayer's indication in the tax disposition, and its defect is significant and obvious.

그러므로 살피건대, 갑제2호증의 3, 갑제4호증의 2, 갑제5, 6호증, 갑제11호증의 1,2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 보태어 보면, 피고는 납세고지서에 의하여 이 사건 과세처분을 함에 있어서 그 납세고지서에 납세의무자를 표시하면서 성명은 원고를 기재하였으나 납세자번호(주민등록번호)와 주소는 원고와 아무런 관계 없는 소외 윤ㅇㅇ의 것을 기재하여 원고에게 송달한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 피고가 이 사건 과세처분을 함에 있어서 납세고지서에 납세의무자를 잘못 표시한 그 하자는 중대하고도 외관상 명백하다 할 것이어서 피고의 이 사건 과세처분은 당연무효라고 할 것이므로, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

On the other hand, the defendant visited the tax authority several times prior to the issuance of the tax disposition in this case, and confirmed the contents of the tax disposition, and even after the defective tax disposition, the tax authority found the tax disposition again on May 22, 191 and did not raise any objection after confirming the contents of the tax disposition against the plaintiff. Thus, the above tax disposition defects in the tax disposition in this case were cured.

However, even if the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the plaintiff's assertion, the above argument alone cannot be viewed as cured of the defect in the tax payment notice, in light of the strongness of Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act regarding the tax payment notice. Further, the defect in the grounds for invalidation of the tax payment notice can not be cured by the ex post facto correction, etc.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the confirmation of the defendant's taxation of this case is legitimate because the defendant's legal interest in seeking the confirmation exists, without any need to decide on the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.