The burden of proving that a tax notice attached to a notice of payment to the secondary taxpayer has not been stated (=the secondary taxpayer)

According to Article 9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1595 of Dec. 31, 1983), the legal form of a tax payment notice attached to a tax payment notice for the secondary taxpayer under Article 12 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 3661 of Dec. 19, 1983) requires the taxpayer to enter the necessary matters under the above Article, such as the basis for the calculation of the tax amount, in the tax payment notice and the receipt kept by the taxpayer. On the other hand, the tax authority is not obliged to keep the duplicate of the tax payment notice separately. Thus, in such a case, the fact that the necessary matters in the tax payment notice were not stated should be proved by the secondary taxpayer who asserts such fact.

Article 12 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 3661 of Dec. 19, 1983); Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1595 of Dec. 31, 1983); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu22563 delivered on October 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

In sum, the theory of the lawsuit did not state a necessary entry under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act in the notice of payment issued on January 15, 1983 against the plaintiff. Since national taxes notified by other notice of payment and national taxes related to the seizure of this case cannot be deemed as identical because the amount of tax, etc. are not consistent, the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

However, according to Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act which was enforced at the time when the national tax related to the attachment of this case was notified, the legal form of the notice of tax payment attached to the notice of tax payment to the second taxpayer stipulated in Article 12 of the Act is that the taxpayer shall enter the necessary matters to be stated in the above Article, such as the basis for calculation of tax amount, etc., and the tax authority shall not separately keep the duplicate of the notice of tax payment. Therefore, in such a case, the fact that the necessary matters to be stated in the notice of tax payment are not stated in the notice of tax payment should be proved by the second taxpayer claiming such fact (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu555 delivered on October 28, 1986). In addition, if we examine the whole of the tax payment notices and the national tax payment years, tax items, tax amount, payment period, etc. stated in the notice of tax payment as stated in the notice of tax payment as stated in the court below, the court below's determination of the national tax payment can not be justified in light of evidence related to the second taxpayer.

Therefore, the plaintiff's 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.

Justices Yoon Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)