(a) Whether a disposition of imposition by a tax payment notice with no basis for calculating the amount of tax omitted is void as a matter of course (negative);

(b) The initial date for the examination request period, if the decision of dismissal on the objection was received after the period for decision;

A. If the chief of a tax office omitted the basis for calculating the amount of tax in imposing capital gains tax, the taxation disposition itself becomes unlawful and is subject to revocation as a defective disposition. However, it cannot be deemed that the defect is significant and apparent. Thus, it cannot be a ground for revocation as a matter of course.

B. If the decision-making period of the director of the tax office with respect to the filing of an objection was 30 days, but the decision-making period was not made until that date (81.7.30) and the decision- dismissal was notified to 7.31 of the same year, he shall make a request for review from 7.31 to 9.28 of the same year, which is the next day of 7.30th of the same year, which is the next day of 7.30th of the same year, which is the next day of 7.30th of the same year, which is the next day of 7.30th of

(a) Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu393 delivered on January 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In imposing the transfer income tax of this case, if the Defendant omitted the basis for calculating the amount of tax in the relevant tax notice, the said tax disposition itself becomes unlawful and subject to revocation as a defective disposition, or it cannot be deemed that the defect is significant and apparent, and thus, it cannot be a ground for invalidation as a matter of course. In this regard, the lower court’s determination that the instant tax disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course based on the tax notice, for which the basis for calculating the amount of tax was omitted, is justifiable and cannot be accepted.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's initial notice of tax payment of this case was received on May 22, 1981 and filed an objection with the director of the Suwon Tax Office on June 30, 1981 and the plaintiff's objection was dismissed on July 31 of the same year without a request for correction or extension notice, and that the plaintiff filed an objection against the plaintiff on September 29 of the same year. The period for decision of the director of the tax office as to the objection was 30 days, and the decision of the director of the tax office was rejected on July 31 of the same year and the decision of dismissal was rejected on July 30 of the same year as the first notice of the decision of dismissal was issued on July 30 of the same year, 7.31 to 60 days of the same year, which was the first notice of the first notice of tax payment of this case, and it was legitimate for the court below to find that the plaintiff's conjunctive request of this case was also unlawful, and it is not legitimate for the court below's new decision revocation of tax payment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young