(a) Service method of notification of change of income amount under Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; and

(b) burden of proof of taxation requirement;

A. The method of notifying the juristic person concerned of the notice of change in the amount of income stipulated in Article 198(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which indicates the time of establishment of the tax withholding obligation of the juristic person, is in accordance with the general principles concerning service of documents stipulated in Section 3 of Chapter XI of the Framework Act on National Taxes, so the method of service by public notice as stipulated in Article 11 of the same Act can only be met if the requirement is met, and in a case where the service of the notice cannot be made because the location of the juristic person concerned is unclear, it shall be notified to the person who received the disposition of the bonus in question, and in a case where the location of the juristic person concerned is unclear, it shall not be exempted from the corporate withholding obligation by

B. In an administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, the tax authority has the burden of proof in principle as to the existence of facts that constitute taxation requirements, such as the reason for taxation, tax base, etc.

(a) Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu396 Decided August 20, 1985, 85Nu501 Decided July 22, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu393 Decided July 7, 1987

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu576 delivered on August 20, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

Article 150 (4) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the bonus disposed of under the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to be paid on the date as determined by the Presidential Decree"; Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the bonus under the provisions of Article 150 (4) of the Act shall be notified to the corporation concerned within 15 days from the date of the determination or correction of the amount of income: Provided, That where it is impossible to serve the notice because the whereabouts of the corporation is unclear, the notice shall be notified to the resident who is disposed of in question; and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the bonus under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been paid on the date of receipt of the notice under the provisions of Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be deemed to be paid on the date of establishment of the obligation to withhold income; if there is no special provision on the method of notifying the corporation of change in the amount of income under the provisions of Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the corporation concerned shall be interpreted to the extent that it is not clear.

The judgment of the court below, which shows it as a preference to the same view, is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 150 (4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the basic rules of the Income Tax Act (8-4. 150 on February 150) which regulates internal regulations of the administrative agency and does not have a legal effect between the state and the people, so the court or the general public is not legally binding. The arguments are groundless.

2. On the third ground for appeal:

Based on the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below acknowledged the defendant's notice of change in the income amount of this case to the plaintiff on July 24, 1984, and rejected the non-party 1's testimony against the above recognition, after recognizing the fact that the reduced notice of change in income amount was served by public notice on December 3, 1984, and rejected the non-party 1's testimony against the above recognition. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and evidence cooking process of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory

3. On the second ground for appeal:

In the administrative litigation seeking revocation on the ground of the illegality of taxation, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proof as to the existence of the facts that meet the taxation requirements, such as the reason for taxation, tax base, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu393, Jul. 7, 1987). Thus, it is legitimate to impose the recognition under Article 94-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is the reason for taxation of the taxation of this case. In other words, the Plaintiff shall bear the burden of proof as to the facts that occurred in the course of taxation of this case, and the burden of proof as to the facts leaked out of the company, even after examining the records.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of taxation requirements and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the occurrence of earnings and the outflow from the company of this case, which are the premise of the taxation disposition of this case, on the premise that the above facts are recognized without any evidence, shall be deemed to have been committed. It is reasonable to argue that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of taxation requirements.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)