[1] The standard time to determine whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation is duplicate disposition (=the time when the argument is closed)

[2] Whether the provision on the notice of tax payment is a mandatory provision, and whether the grounds for calculation of tax amount must be stated in the notice of tax payment and attaching the calculation statement (affirmative)

[1] If the tax authority imposed inheritance tax and gift tax on the portion of real estate registered in the name of death after the death of the tax authority, on several occasions after the registration of ownership transfer was made, but again requested revocation of the disposition of this case, and then revoked all of the remaining taxes except for the tax of this case and notified the Plaintiff thereof before the closing date of the argument of the court below, the original tax disposition was revoked, and eventually, the only tax disposition of this case remains at the time of the closing date of the argument of the court below, and since the revoked tax disposition does not have any legal disadvantage to the Plaintiff, there is no reason to revoke it as a duplicate tax disposition.

[2] In a case where the head of a tax office notifies the tax base and tax amount pursuant to Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996), pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 19(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996), he/she shall specify the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, grounds for calculation thereof, payment period and place of payment and notify the tax base and tax calculation statement along with the tax calculation statement. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate notification of tax payment unless there is an omission of the items to be stated in the tax payment notice, such as the basis for calculation

[1] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) (see current Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 19(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see current Article 79(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu312 decided Nov. 11, 1986 (Gong1987, 38) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu56 decided May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 980) Supreme Court Decision 87Nu545 decided Nov. 22, 198 (Gong1989, 27) 88Nu7996 decided Nov. 10, 1989 (Gong190, 38)

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 95Gu5463 delivered on May 9, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Defendant died of the Nonparty regarding the portion of the instant real estate registered in the name of the Nonparty, and thereafter, (b) made a taxation disposition of inheritance tax and gift tax on several occasions on the Plaintiff; and (c) again issued the instant taxation disposition, and (d) revoked all of the remaining taxation disposition except the instant taxation disposition and notified the Plaintiff.

If the facts are identical to the above, the original taxation disposition was revoked in entirety, and eventually, at the time when the argument of the court below was closed, only the instant taxation disposition remains, and since the cancelled taxation disposition does not have any legal disadvantage to the Plaintiff, it does not have any legal disadvantage to the Plaintiff, the instant taxation disposition should be revoked as a duplicate disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu312, Nov. 11, 1986).

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant taxation disposition cannot be deemed as a double taxation disposition, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to double taxation disposition. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to invoke the instant taxation case as different cases.

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

In cases where the head of a tax office notifies the tax base and tax amount pursuant to Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996), he/she shall specify the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, basis for calculation thereof, payment period and place of payment in a tax payment notice, along with the tax base and tax calculation statement, pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 19(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996). It is the established opinion of this court that the tax payment notice cannot be deemed legitimate unless the matters such as the basis for calculation of tax amount are omitted or the calculation statement of tax base and tax amount are not attached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu566, May 12, 198; 8Nu7996, Nov. 10, 1989).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, on December 8, 1994, the defendant received the share in the real estate and bank deposit of this case from the non-party and received the gift tax of this case pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. In such a case, although the tax payment notice of this case should specify the particulars of calculation of the taxable value and the amount of the tax on the taxable property as stipulated in the above Acts and subordinate statutes or attach the calculation statement, it can be found that the tax payment notice of this case does not contain any such particulars of calculation according to the tax payment notice of this case issued by the defendant (Evidence A 2) and there is no evidence to support that the defendant notified the plaintiff of this case with such calculation statement attached to the tax payment notice of this case. Thus, the inheritance tax disposition of this case is therefore deemed to have violated the above Acts and subordinate statutes

According to the records, the plaintiff pointed out in the court below that the defendant did not attach a detailed statement of calculation of the tax base and amount of the inheritance tax of this case to the notice of tax payment. The plaintiff alleged that the defect in the notice of tax payment of this case constitutes a case where there is no notice of tax imposition, and thus the plaintiff's assertion includes the purport that the procedure defect in the notice of tax payment of this case is included. Thus, the court below should have

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant taxation disposition included inheritance tax disposition, but rejected Plaintiff’s assertion as to the defect in the instant duty payment notice. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the notice of tax payment, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or omitting judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, 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 Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)