(a) Determination of a taxpayer and notice of tax payment;

B. The transit and ex officio investigation of the previous trial procedure

A. In light of the provisions of Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 25(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), and Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, if a taxation disposition was made and the taxpayer is deemed to have become final and conclusive by such taxation disposition, at least a taxpayer must be notified of tax payment.

(b)Ex officio investigate whether the disposition seeking revocation has gone through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

A. Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), Articles 25(2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and 8 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu304 Delivered on June 12, 1979

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu486 delivered on September 12, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal as to the procedure of the preceding trial are examined.

According to the result of the court below's examination of the inheritance tax decision of the plaintiffs under custody and the documents attached thereto, since the deceased non-party to the deceased deceased on January 6, 1974, the defendant decided 2,59,512,780 won as inheritance tax for the plaintiff 1 and the deceased's heir, the head of the above deceased on April 1, 1975, and notified the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 8 of the notice for payment indicating 2,56,512,780 won as inheritance tax, but the inheritance tax has increased as of July 22, 1975 by 2,56,512,780 won as inheritance tax, it can be recognized that the taxpayer was notified only to the plaintiff 1 after indicating the plaintiff 1 and 8 as inheritance tax.

According to Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the amount of national taxes shall, except in special cases, be determined according to the procedure of decision under the pertinent tax-related Acts, and Article 25(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982) provides that when the taxable value is determined, the taxpayer shall be notified of the determination. According to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, the head of a tax office must issue a notice stating the taxable year, tax item, amount of tax, basis for calculation, deadline for payment, and place for payment of national taxes to the taxpayer. Thus, in light of each of the above provisions, if a tax disposition was made and it is deemed that the taxpayer has become final and conclusive by such tax disposition,

On the other hand, an inheritor is obligated to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of the inherited property received or to be received by each inheritor according to the ratio of the inherited property, and the defendant has to pay the inheritance tax to each inheritor according to the ratio of the shares, and the defendant has to notify the payment of the total amount of inheritance tax by indicating only the plaintiff 1 and eight persons, such as wartime, and the remaining eight persons except the plaintiff 1 are not identified, and thus, the above eight persons are not subject to a tax disposition, and only the plaintiff 1 is subject to a tax disposition, and the disposition against the plaintiff 1 is also subject to a tax payment notice to the extent of the share of inheritance (Supreme Court Decision 80Nu596 delivered on September 22, 1981).

However, according to the result of the examination of documents on the request for examination by the plaintiff et al. in custody in the National Tax Service Review3 and the National Tax Tribunal's disposition on April 1, 1975, Plaintiff 2 filed a request for examination in the name of the plaintiff 2, and the decision to dismiss the request for examination by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service before remanding the case, it is recognized that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case upon dismissal by the plaintiff 2.

Therefore, the court below should have investigated ex officio whether the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2 had gone through the legitimate procedure of the judgment of the court below on the disposition of this case by the court below, and should have tried and judged on the merits after this year, but it did not reach this point has committed an error of law in the incomplete hearing, and there is a ground for appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)