(a) Effect of a disposition of imposition by a tax payment notice wherein the basis for calculating the amount of tax is omitted (=reasons for cancellation);

(b) The effects of a duty payment notice whose basis for calculating the amount of tax is omitted if the taxpayer knows the basis for calculation.

C. Whether the revocation of a disposition for taxation by a tax notice with omission of entry is significantly inappropriate for public welfare (negative)

(d) reasons not alleged in the preceding trial proceedings and arguments in administrative litigation;

(e) Supplementary notice of any omission in a tax payment notice or recovery of any defect in the initial disposition;

A. Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act does not simply provide a decoration for the convenience of tax administration, but at the same time provide a fair and prudent and reasonable disposition by excluding persons in tax administration, and at the same time provide a taxpayer with a detailed information on the details of the disposition of imposition, decision on whether to object, and convenience in appeal. Thus, a disposition of imposition by a notice of tax payment without the grounds for calculation of the amount of tax is unlawful and thus subject to revocation.

B. As long as a notice of tax payment based on a defective notice on the basis of calculating the amount of tax is deemed unlawful in violation of a mandatory provision, whether the taxpayer knows the basis for calculating the amount of tax as his/her own does not affect the judgment of illegality.

C. As long as the substance of a disposition of taxation is lawful, if the disposition of taxation is revoked due to minor defects in the form of omission in the entries in the notice of tax payment, it would result in an unfair taxation without imposing taxes, or even if the disposition is revoked, such as notification of tax imposition or supplementation, it would result in only economic, time, and mental waste, thereby making it difficult to revoke the disposition of tax payment considerably inappropriate for public welfare as prescribed in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act or there is no practical benefit for the taxpayer.

D. As long as the assertion in the previous trial procedure and the assertion in the administrative litigation are not completely different, matters that were not asserted in the previous trial procedure can be asserted in the administrative litigation, and the assertion that the disposition of tax payment notice lacking the basis for calculating the amount of tax is unlawful is also one of the illegal grounds of the instant taxation disposition. As such, the previous argument was added to the previous argument only in the previous trial procedure, and it cannot be deemed as a entirely separate argument.

E. Even if the notice was given to supplement the omitted matters in the notice of tax payment, if the date of notification is only after the judgment of illegality in the disposition of tax payment, and if it is impossible to reduce the taxpayer's decision of objection and convenience in appeal in light of the legislative intent of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, the defect in the disposition cannot be deemed to have been cured.

(a)(e)Article 9.1(1) of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 12(d) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 2 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 9.1 of the National Tax Collection Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu133 delivered on March 23, 1982; 81Nu319 delivered on May 11, 1982; 82Nu350 delivered on September 13, 1983; 83Nu602 delivered on February 14, 1984

East Sea Gas Corporation

Head of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu53 delivered on January 10, 1984

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu153 Delivered on April 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when national taxes are collected, a notice stating the taxable year, items of taxation, amount of tax, basis for calculation, and place for payment of national taxes must be issued to the taxpayer. The purport of the above provision is not simply a decoration provision for the convenience of tax administration, but a fair and reasonable disposition by excluding persons in tax administration, and at the same time, to provide the taxpayer with convenience of appeal by clearly notifying the details of the disposition for taxation, it is reasonable to interpret that if such provision is omitted in the notice for tax payment, it becomes unlawful and subject to revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu133, Mar. 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu319, May 11, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu350, Sept. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 201Nu6360, Sept. 14, 1984).

As to ground of appeal No. 3

However, as long as the substance of the instant disposition requiring a lawsuit is lawful (which seems to have this duty to pay taxes to the Plaintiff), the revocation of the disposition of imposition due to a minor defect in the form of omission in the written notice, it may not be adopted as an independent view that the revocation of the instant disposition of taxation is significantly inappropriate for the public welfare or that there is no practical benefit to the Plaintiff, solely on the ground that the revocation of the said disposition of taxation is caused by economic, time, and mental waste, even if the Defendant re-informs the disposition of imposition or supplement of the written notice, and thus, even if the Defendant re-informs the disposition of imposition or supplement, it would result in economic, mental, and mental waste. Therefore, it cannot be said that the revocation of the instant disposition of taxation is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare or that there is no practical benefit to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be admitted

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5:

The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of tax payment notice, which lacks the basis for calculating the amount of tax, is illegal, shall not be deemed to be a different argument in the previous trial proceedings. Thus, in this case, there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit in the administrative litigation, even if the defendant gives a supplementary notice of the omitted matters as stated in its decision in January 26, 1984, such notification is clearly after the decision of the court below was rendered (which is a new argument at the original level) and it is apparent that the decision of objection and convenience in appeal can be reduced in light of the legislative intent of Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and therefore, it cannot be seen that the disposition of tax payment notice is correct.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice)