Whether the substantial basis, route, circumstance, etc. of calculating the amount of tax should be stated in a notice of tax payment of value-added tax in addition to taxable periods, tax bases, and calculation basis (negative)

According to Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, when a taxpayer intends to collect a national tax, he/she shall issue a written notice specifying the taxable year, tax item, amount of tax, basis for calculation, deadline for payment, place for payment and place for payment of the national tax to the taxpayer. If a taxpayer files a return, pays, determines, or revises a tax base and amount of tax by taxable period, such as value-added tax, and the tax base, basis for calculation, etc. by taxable period and the relevant taxable period are clearly stated and notified. There is no basis

Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Yang Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu191 delivered on April 28, 1992

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

As to the ground of appeal by the defendant performer

In the reasoning of the judgment below, when the tax assessment conducted on September 1, 1981 by the Seoul High Court decision on March 21, 1985 was revoked on the ground that the defendant did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the notice of tax payment and simply stated only the amount of tax in the notice of tax payment, the court below ruled that the above taxation disposition by the defendant was unlawful on the ground that the defendant did not clearly state the substantial grounds, route, and circumstances of calculating the amount of tax in question and did not clearly state the remaining grounds, route, and circumstances of calculating the amount of tax in question, based on the revised decision of Sep. 1, 1981, which was written in the same manner as the revised decision of Sep. 1, 1981, which was written on May 1, 1985, and did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the notice of tax payment and notified the plaintiff as of May 1, 195.

The instant taxation disposition is a disposition that is imposed and collected again by a tax payment notice stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax as seen earlier, on the grounds that the Defendant’s return of value-added tax was either erroneous or incomplete and neglected to fulfill his duty to report, thereby correcting the tax base, tax amount, etc. and imposing additional tax.

According to Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, when a national tax is to be collected, a written notice stating the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, basis for calculation thereof, time limit and place for payment shall be issued to a taxpayer. The amount of national tax to be returned, paid, or corrected by calculating the tax base and amount of tax for each taxable period, such as value-added tax, must be notified by specifying the tax base and basis for calculation of the tax amount by taxable period and each taxable period (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8527 delivered on July 12, 191).Therefore, in this case, it is apparent that the Defendant imposed a tax by a notice stating the tax base and amount of tax for each taxable period, tax base, and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax to be paid, and there is no room to deem that the Defendant erred in the notice procedure. There is no basis to require the tax payment notice to describe the substantial basis, route, circumstance, etc. of calculating the amount of tax in the notice of tax payment. If the circumstances of this case were as seen earlier, it can be stated only the basis for calculating the amount of tax amount in the notice.

Therefore, the court below should consider the authenticity and legal legitimacy of the relevant facts by all arguments and evidence, which the taxation authority and the taxpayer have established until the closing of argument, as to whether the pertinent tax amount is within the scope of the notified tax amount, which is subject to taxation by the taxation authority, and thereby, should not be readily concluded that the relevant disposition is unlawful. The judgment of the court below is not free from criticism that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of the taxation disposition, and did not properly examine and determine the relevant facts, or did not err by failing to satisfy the reasons for the judgment. The arguments are with merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.