[1] Nature of the provisions of tax law concerning the notification of the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the tax base and tax rate prescribed by these provisions, and whether the taxation disposition by a tax payment notice with omission of entry of other necessary matters is legitimate (negative)

[2] The elements of a written document that can supplement the defect of a tax payment notice in advance

[1] Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 183 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) (see Article 149 of the current Act), Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 183 (see Article 83 of the current Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) (see Article 149 of the current Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu711 decided Mar. 27, 1984 (Gong1984, 831), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu664 decided Jun. 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1296), Supreme Court Decision 84Nu295 decided Jul. 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1374), Supreme Court Decision 85Nu419 decided Apr. 28, 198 (Gong1987, 909), Supreme Court Decision 200Du7957 decided Jun. 12, 201 (Gong2001Ha, 163959) decided Oct. 29, 205 (Gong16396, 19659)

Haak-hee and two others (Attorney Hong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2004Nu1156 delivered on April 22, 2005

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on adopted evidence, acknowledged the fact that the defendant issued each of the plaintiffs, etc., who are inheritors, etc., with the notice of tax payment stating the total tax amount to be paid in the notice of tax payment and the amount of tax to be paid according to inheritance shares in imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiffs, etc., who are their co-inheritors upon the death of a pregnant owner, along with the notice of tax payment notice stating the total tax amount to be paid, the tax base, tax rate and deductible tax amount which is the basis for the calculation thereof, the tax base, tax rate and deductible tax amount of the heir, the heir's family and six and the share of the co-inheritors, the ratio of the inheritance possession of each co-inheritors, the amount of tax to be paid by each co-inheritors, and the amount of tax to be paid jointly and severally by each co-inheritors, the total amount of tax to be paid by each inheritor, the total amount of tax to be paid by each inheritor, etc., and the tax amount to be paid by each inheritor is unlawful.

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); and Article 183 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) shall be construed and applied strictly as a mandatory provision to ensure fairness in tax administration by allowing the disposition authority to exclude and take careful and reasonable measures in accordance with the large principle of no taxation without law prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, and at the same time, to inform the taxpayer of the details of the disposition and to ensure convenience in the determination of whether he/she is dissatisfied with the disposition, and to ensure that the tax base and tax rate of the prescribed provisions, tax amount, and other necessary matters are omitted, and thus, it is unlawful to revoke the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du7957 of Jun. 12, 201).

However, according to the records, the documents attached when the defendant issued a tax notice to the plaintiffs, etc. who are the deceased's heir, are limited to the notice of succession to tax liability (Evidence No. 1 and 3 of Evidence No. 2 of Evidence No. 1) and the notice of details of tax liability by inheritor (Evidence No. 1 and 3 of Evidence No. 3 of Evidence No.), and the above documents including the tax notice are found to have omitted entry of the transfer income tax rate of this case. The written decision of transfer income tax (Evidence No. 1-1 of Evidence No. 1-1) written by the defendant contain the total tax amount to be paid by the plaintiffs, etc., and the tax base and the deductible tax amount as well as the tax amount of the transfer income tax. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above written decision of transfer income tax was attached at the time of the above tax notice, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant issued the plaintiffs, etc. with the above written decision of transfer income tax attached to the above tax notice. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)