A. Whether the second taxpayer’s designation disposition is subject to an appeal litigation (negative)

(b) The case holding that it is necessary to clarify whether the claim for nullification of the tax payment was made only against the secondary taxpayer designated disposition or against the disposition of tax payment notice;

A. The second liability for tax payment is specifically determined by the notification of payment and the second liability for tax payment is not yet specifically determined by only the designation and disposition of the second liability for tax payment, and such designation and disposition cannot be subject to appeal litigation.

B. In a case where it is recognized that the defendant (the director of the tax office) sent the second taxpayer designation notice to the plaintiff along with the second taxpayer designation notice, even if the plaintiff stated the second taxpayer designation notice disposition for seeking nullification or revocation of the claim, it cannot be necessarily said that it is the only subject of the second taxpayer designation notice or the subject of the second taxpayer designation notice disposition. Thus, the court must examine and determine the plaintiff's name and name after determining which subject to the second disposition.

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 39, 40, and 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 39, 40, and 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff 2, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

(b) the Director of the Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu33 delivered on February 8, 1983

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the lawsuit seeking nullification or revocation of the above designated disposition, since the second tax liability is specifically determined by notification and the second tax obligor designation disposition of this case does not have a specific tax liability, and such designation disposition of this case cannot be the object of appeal litigation.

Although the second taxpayer designation disposition cannot be a subject of appeal, according to the records (No. 2-1.2 of the evidence No. 2), the defendant notified the plaintiff as the second taxpayer designation to the plaintiff on January 17, 1981 and sent the notice to the National Treasury by January 31, 81. In this case, it is recognized that the plaintiff specified the second taxpayer designation notice as the subject of the second taxpayer designation notice to the plaintiff on January 31, 81. In such a case, even if the plaintiff expressed the second taxpayer designation notice as the subject of seeking nullification or revocation in the purport of the claim, it cannot be clearly seen that it is only the subject of the second taxpayer designation notice or the subject of the second taxpayer designation notice notice. Thus, the court below should have deliberated and judged the plaintiff's second taxpayer's name after deciding whether the second taxpayer is subject to the second taxpayer designation notice.

The court below, without taking such measures, shall be deemed to be subject to the second taxpayer designation notification disposition, and the above determination was made, and the court below shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affects the judgment due to the exercise of right to ask for clarification and the incomplete hearing. Therefore, the argument is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)