(a) Validity of a tax disposition by a tax payment notice, for which the basis for calculating the amount of tax is omitted (=reasons for cancellation);

B. Whether the revocation of a taxation disposition by a person liable to pay the fish volume tax constitutes a case where the public welfare is not appropriate

C. Whether a claim is made in the administrative litigation procedure of the method of offence and defense that was not asserted in the previous trial procedure

(a) If the head of a tax office omits in a tax payment notice the tax base, the basis for calculating the amount of tax, etc., the taxation disposition shall be deemed unlawful and thus subject to cancellation;

B. The purport of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is that even if an administrative litigation to be revoked by an administrative litigation is illegal, the revocation may be dismissed without cancelling the administrative litigation if it is deemed that it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare. Thus, since the plaintiff is obligated to pay taxes, it cannot be said that the revocation of illegal taxation is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare solely on the ground that the administrative litigation to be revoked by an administrative litigation is causing only economic and time waste by re-informing the disposition of dance.

C. In an appeal litigation, the Plaintiff may claim the method of offence and defense which was not asserted in the previous trial procedure in the litigation procedure, and the court may examine it and determine the lawfulness of the administrative disposition.

(a) Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and Article 1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu55 delivered on April 26, 1983, 83Nu101 delivered on November 23, 1983, 84Nu223 delivered on June 12, 1984 (dong) 84Nu248 delivered on June 12, 1984 (dong) 82Nu420 delivered on July 26, 1983

Plaintiff

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu463 delivered on February 22, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) As determined by the court below, if the tax payment notice of the global income tax omitted the entry of the tax base and the basis for calculating the tax amount under Article 128 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act Article 183 of the same Act, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, the instant taxation disposition is unlawful and it cannot be exempted from its revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu101, Nov. 22, 1983). Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law

(2) The purport of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is that even if an administrative disposition which is to be cancelled by an administrative litigation is illegal, the cancellation may be cancelled if it is deemed that it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare without cancelling it, and as such, the plaintiff is liable to pay the tax in this case. Thus, it cannot be said that cancellation of the tax in this case is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare solely on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant would cause only economic and time waste by the defendant's re-assessment of the tax in this case, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case has no interest in legal action. Thus, the plaintiff's argument cannot be adopted.

(3) In an appeal litigation, the plaintiff can assert the method of offence and defense which was not asserted in the prior trial procedure in the litigation procedure, and the court may examine it and determine the legitimacy of administrative disposition.

The court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's argument that was first asserted in the procedure of the previous trial, that is, the plaintiff's argument that there was a procedural defect in the tax disposition, and the court below's decision on the illegality of the tax disposition is just, and it cannot be deemed that the above measures of the court below violate the precedents of party members, and therefore, the argument on this point is groundless

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)