(a) Mandatory provisions that stipulate the tax base, etc. in a tax payment notice to be notified;

B. Grounds that were not asserted in the pre-trial proceedings and arguments in administrative litigation

C. The tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, and the validity of taxation for which the basis of calculation is not specified (=reasons for cancellation)

A. In the event that the head of a tax office or the head of a Si/Gun intends to impose and collect national taxes, the provisions of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act stipulating the tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, and the basis for calculation thereof to be issued and notified in a tax payment notice shall not be merely a decoration provision for the convenience of tax administration, but the provisions of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act stating that the tax authorities are fair in tax administration by excluding, careful and reasonable tax disposition in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law as stipulated by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the provisions stating that taxpayers should be notified in detail of the details of the disposition and give taxpayers convenience in making decisions as to

B. The most fundamental reason for administrative litigation to take the procedure of a prior trial according to the so-called so-called principle of a prior trial is that an administrative agency has an opportunity to correct illegal and unjust administrative acts by itself to walk the effect of self-control and supervision of administrative authority and to fulfill the function of remedies for infringement of rights. As such, while the procedure of a prior trial and administrative litigation are integrated in terms of the right of remedy for infringement of rights, the nature, structure and procedure differs from that of the claim in the prior trial procedure and administrative litigation. Thus, the argument in the administrative litigation procedure differs from that of the right of remedy for infringement, and therefore, the matters which were not claimed in the prior trial procedure are dismissed by the means of a prior trial.

C. The fact that the tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, and the basis for calculation thereof are not specified in a taxation disposition that the taxation disposition is unlawful means that it does not reach the extent that the defect is null and void and constitutes a ground for revocation.

(c)Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Attorney Jeon Jong-young, et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu516 delivered on November 4, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3:

Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 32 of the former Business Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the occurrence of the taxation requirements of this case, and Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, provide that when the head of a tax office or the head of a Si/Gun intends to impose and collect national taxes, he/she shall notify the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and the basis for the calculation thereof clearly in the tax payment notice, not just a decoration provision for convenience in tax administration, but also a mere provision for excluding the tax authorities' children and allowing taxpayers to take a careful and reasonable tax disposition in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law as prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby ensuring fairness in tax administration, and providing taxpayers with detailed notice of the details of the taxation disposition, and providing taxpayers with convenience in filing an appeal. Accordingly, if such provision is omitted as a mandatory provision, it is against the mandatory law.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax, etc. of this case against the plaintiff is justified at the time of the original adjudication that the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and the calculation basis thereof are not specified in the notice of tax payment. Contrary to the party members' opinions, the above several provisions are merely a decoration provision, or they are contrary to the principle of fair taxation or public welfare, or they are contrary to the legal principles of the purport of Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, because they are merely an independent opinion, and there is no reason for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

In administrative litigation, the most fundamental reason for taking the procedure of a prior trial according to the so-called principle of a prior trial is that the administrative agency has an opportunity to correct illegal and unfair administrative acts by itself, thereby walking the effect of self-control and supervision of the administrative authority and fulfilling the function of remedies for infringement of rights. As such, while the procedure of a prior trial and administrative litigation are integrated in terms of the right of remedy for infringement of rights, the nature, structure and procedure differ from that of the right, and thus, the argument in administrative litigation is not necessarily consistent with the argument in the prior trial and administrative litigation. Therefore, it is possible to newly assert matters that are not asserted in the prior trial procedure in the administrative litigation even if the tax disposition in this case, which was not asserted in the prior trial procedure, did not specify the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and the basis for calculation thereof, and it is illegal in the administrative litigation of this case, even if it was asserted in the administrative litigation of this case, it cannot be said that there is no reason for appeal.

3. As to the fifth ground for appeal:

If the defect inherent in an administrative disposition is significant and objective, and if the defect does not reach the degree of the defect, the administrative disposition will not take effect, and if the defect does not reach the degree of the defect, it shall not only be the cancellation of the administrative disposition, but also be limited to the invalidity or minimum of the administrative disposition, it shall be examined from a theoretical perspective such as the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law in violation and shall be reasonable consideration on the specific case itself. In addition, if the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and basis for calculation are not specified in the tax disposition, the opinion of party members that the tax disposition is illegal should be considered as a ground for cancellation without reaching the defect in the tax disposition until it becomes null and void, and the purport of the original adjudication of this case is also the same. Thus, the purport of the original adjudication of this case is that the return of the objection in this case, which already paid the tax disposition, under the premise that the revocation of the tax disposition of this case would not have any interest in seeking the nullification of the tax disposition of this case, it is clear that it has no reason to do.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)