A. Grounds that are not asserted in the pre-trial proceedings and arguments in the administrative litigation

B. Whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition after tax payment is filed (affirmative)

C. Lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of the defect in tax payment notice and judgment on assessment

A. A. A reason that was not asserted in the pre-trial proceedings can be asserted as a new reason until the closing of argument in the fact-finding proceedings. As such, even if the Plaintiff did not assert the necessary elements of the tax payment notice at the time of a long-term tax office’s imposition of the Plaintiff in the pre-trial proceedings or the litigation proceedings, the defect is cured and the Plaintiff cannot assert the new reason accordingly.

B. Even if the Plaintiff voluntarily paid the amount equivalent to the amount of the tax after being imposed, the defect in the disposition is not cured. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition on the grounds of illegality after paying the tax.

C. It is against the principle of no taxation without law, which argues that Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall apply to the following grounds: (a) a large enterprise’s perception of corporate sociality and ethics and self-support of tax evasion is detrimental to social justice and the national economy; and (b) it is contrary to public welfare to allow the evasion of tax collection by citing the defect of tax payment notice.

(a) Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 6(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 55(c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Nu312 delivered on Nov. 11, 1980; 69Nu37 delivered on Jul. 29, 1969; 74Nu159 delivered on Feb. 10, 1976; 83Nu476 delivered on Jul. 12, 1983; 67Nu77 delivered on Sept. 17, 1968

Rob Electricity Co., Ltd. (Co., Ltd. prior to the change of trade name: Honam Electricity Industry, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seogju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Gu57 decided June 8, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

Although examining the record of the argument that the defect in the omission of the above entry requirements was cured by supplementing the necessary entry requirements omitted in the notice of tax payment at the time of the instant disposition, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it is a new fact that the defendant had never asserted at all until the closing of argument in the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and even if the plaintiff was not asserted in the previous trial procedure, it can be asserted a new reason until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. Thus, even if the plaintiff did not assert the defect in the previous trial procedure or the litigation procedure for a long time, the plaintiff cannot be able to recover the defect and make the plaintiff unable to assert the new reason (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu312 delivered on Nov. 11, 1980).

On the second ground for appeal

Even if the plaintiff voluntarily paid the amount equivalent to the tax amount after receiving the disposition of this case, the defect of the disposition of this case is not cured. Thus, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground of the illegality of the disposition of this case after paying the tax (referring to the Supreme Court Decision 69Nu37 delivered on July 29, 1969).

On the third ground for appeal

In this case, it is against the principle of no taxation without law, which argues that Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act should be applied in this case, since it is against the public welfare because it is against the principle of no taxation without law, which permits large enterprises such as the plaintiff to understand the sociality and ethics of the company and to refrain from tax evasion, and it undermines social justice and the national economy and permits tax evasion due to the defect of tax payment notice.

On the fourth ground

As seen above, even if the grounds that did not claim in the previous trial procedure are the grounds that did not claim in the previous trial procedure, the administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive as to the grounds that did not claim in the previous trial procedure, and therefore, the legal principle that new assertion is a new claim is inappropriate.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)