[1] The elements for a taxation disposition that misleads the facts of the taxation requirements to the effect that the taxation disposition is void as a matter of course

[2] The case holding that a disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax against a person who registered the title holder of the registration of invalidation is not necessarily null and void

[1] In order for a taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively and objectively in violation of important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation in question, should be examined in a teleological context as well as in a reasonable study on the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, a taxation conducted by a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations, which are subject to taxation, should be deemed to be serious and obvious, but if there are objective circumstances that make it possible to believe that the legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, which are not subject to taxation, are subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, even if the defect is serious, if it can only be determined by the factual basis.

[2] The case holding that a disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax against a person who registered the title holder of the registration of invalidation is not void automatically

[1] Articles 4 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 4 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10862 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 207) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16329 delivered on May 28, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1305), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12634 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2024), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da17339 Delivered on June 29, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1723)

Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for defendant)

Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Kim Jong-soo)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na49158 delivered on April 11, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order for a taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient, and its defect must be objectively and objectively in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation disposition in question, should be examined in a teleological context as well as rational consideration on the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu10862, Nov. 27, 1990; 97Nu16329, May 28, 1999); provided that a person who does not have any legal relation or fact-finding, which is subject to taxation, is deemed to have a significant and obvious defect; provided that if there is objective reason to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or fact that is not subject to taxation, it can only be found that it is evident that it can only be found to have been subject to taxation, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

According to the facts and records established by the court below, at the time of the imposition of the aggregate land tax of this case, the plaintiff was registered as the owner of the land of this case, and it can be known that the plaintiff was occupying the land adjacent to the land of this case, and at least objective and extra-type, there is a factual basis that could mislead the plaintiff as the actual owner of the aggregate land tax of this case. Even if the above registration should be cancelled as the registration of invalidity of cause, such fact can only be revealed after an accurate investigation. Furthermore, even if there was a defect in the taxation of this case after the Supreme Court decision of this case was rendered after the taxation of this case, it cannot be said that the defect is apparent. At the time of the disposition of this case, even if there was a defect in the taxation of this case, it cannot be said that the defect is apparent. At the time of the disposition of this case, the Republic of Korea filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. to deny the ownership of the land of this case, and the lawsuit on the ownership of this case was in progress for a long time (the Supreme Court decision to reverse tariff classification).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of imposition of the aggregate land tax of this case imposed by the plaintiff as a de facto owner of the land of this case is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the good faith principle or the invalidation of the taxation disposition, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)