In the reported tax payment system, the notice of unpaid payment is merely a collection procedure and is not a taxation.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff filed a return on the attached tax and the agricultural characteristics tax, and the tax base and tax amount were determined by the Plaintiff, the issuance of a tax notice to pay the total amount of the tax is not a notification of tax that establishes a new tax amount, and thus there is no lawsuit

Article 17 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act and its rectification

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of comprehensive real estate tax on February 15, 2007 by KRW 3,382,870 and special rural development tax on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 2006, the assessment basis date of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2006, the Plaintiff owned 924,000,000, 000 ○○○○○○○ apartment, 189, 429, 106, 429, 105, 00 6, 305, and 1466, 00 △△△△-dong, 000, the Plaintiff’s wife, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff, as the principal housing owner under Article 7(1) of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8235, Jan. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) and reported the amount of comprehensive real estate tax for the year 2006 after subtracting the amount of 101,486 won from the amount of deduction at the time of voluntary payment on December 14, 2006, as the comprehensive real estate tax for the year 2006 (hereinafter the same shall apply) which actually pays 3,281,387 won, as the comprehensive real estate tax for the year 2006 (hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. On February 15, 2007, the Defendant issued a tax notice to pay KRW 3,382,870,000 (hereinafter the same shall apply) and KRW 676,570, which was originally calculated by excluding the amount of voluntary deduction from the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence 1, 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. We look at ex officio. The final tax and the agricultural special tax applicable to this case are taxes in the form of tax return (in the case of the final tax, the tax was changed from the first tax payment on January 1, 2007, which was enforced on January 1, 2007, to the imposition method). In the case of the tax return method as above, the tax amount shall be determined when the taxpayer files the tax base and tax amount at the time when the taxpayer files the tax return. The taxpayer is obligated to pay the tax together with the tax return, and it is merely a collection disposition for the collection of the final tax, and it cannot be deemed a taxation subject to a revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004).

B. In this case, the Plaintiff filed a tax return on December 14, 2006 on the closing tax and agricultural special tax belonging to the Defendant for the year 2006, and the tax base and tax amount have already been determined. Accordingly, even if the Defendant issued the above tax notice stating that the amount of tax should be included in the amount of tax originally reported, and the amount of tax should be paid in full, since the amount of tax was not paid as scheduled under the scheduled return, it is merely a claim for the performance of the tax obligation or an order for the performance of the tax obligation, which has already been determined merely rather than a notice of tax

C. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of a tax payment notice on February 15, 2007 on the premise that the defendant's duty payment notice constitutes a tax imposition disposition is unlawful as it seeks the revocation of a non-existent disposition.

3. Conclusion

The instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.