(a) The validity of a tax payment notice by a tax payment notice without stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax; and

(b) Requirements for healing of defective taxation by a notice of tax payment for which the basis for calculating the amount of tax is omitted.

A. Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are mandatory provisions. Therefore, the notice of local tax payment must be given by a document stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, etc., and the notice of tax payment without stating the grounds therefor is unlawful.

B. In order to allow the correction of the defect of a taxation disposition based on a tax notice, for which the basis for calculating the amount of tax was omitted, the determination of whether to object to the taxation disposition and the convenience of appeal should be made at the latest within a reasonable period that could be reduced by the filing of objection. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defect of the said taxation disposition was cured on the ground that the pre-trial procedure for the said taxation disposition was completed and the notification of the basis for calculating the amount of

(a)Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 9(1)(b) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu133 delivered on March 23, 1982; 82Nu350 delivered on September 13, 1983; 83Nu602 delivered on February 14, 1984; 82Nu420 delivered on July 26, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu476 delivered on May 23, 1983

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful since the defendant did not specify the basis for calculating the tax amount under Article 8-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the defendant's notification of the disposition of this case can be acknowledged as not stating the ground for calculating the tax amount in the notice of this case, but it is difficult to conclude that the local tax is simply calculated in the market price standard where the local tax is already determined, and there is a defect to the extent that the revocation of the disposition of this case should be made only because it did not state some of the grounds for easily calculating the tax amount in the notice of this case. Furthermore, in light of the purport of evidence No. 4-1 (Notice of Calculation) No. 4-1) without dispute, it can be acknowledged that the defendant notified the plaintiff of the ground for calculating the tax amount after the disposition of this case. Thus, the above defect was cured by the above notification, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

However, according to Article 25 (1) of the Local Tax Act, when a local tax is to be collected, the head of the local government or a public official delegated by him shall notify the person liable for tax payment or person liable for extraordinary collection of the amount to be paid, time limit, place of payment, and other necessary matters in writing. According to Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the payment notice under Article 25 of the same Act shall be made with a written notice for tax payment stating the following matters:

1. The year, tax item, payment period and amount of the local tax to be paid, and 2. The basis for calculation of the tax amount and the place of payment are stipulated as the year, tax item, payment period and amount of the local tax to be paid, and 2. The purpose of this is to ensure the fairness of tax administration by inducing the disposition authority to exclude and take prudent and reasonable measures in accordance with the principle of no taxation without representation, while at the same time, to provide convenience to taxpayers in making decisions as to whether they are dissatisfied with the disposition of taxation and filing objections thereto. Therefore, this provision is a mandatory provision. Therefore, the tax payment notice without the grounds for calculating the tax amount should be deemed to be unlawful and revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu133, Mar. 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu350, Sept. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu602, Feb. 14, 1984).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles on the cure of defects in taxation and Article 25 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below is not reversed.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)