(a) Where necessary descriptions are contained in the taxation guide prior to the disposition, whether such defects can be cured even if some of the descriptions are omitted in the tax notice;

B. The meaning of "property acquired and held after registration" under the main text of Article 14(4) of the former Foreign Capital Inducement Act

A. If the necessary entry in the tax notice sent prior to the disposition was properly stated, it is apparent that the taxpayer would not have any hindrance to the decision of whether to object to the taxation disposition or filing an appeal. Therefore, even if the entries were partially omitted, the defect in the tax notice can be corrected or the defect can be corrected.

B. Article 14 (4) of the former Foreign Capital Inducement Act (amended by Act No. 4316 of Jan. 14, 191) is one of the tax support systems established to effectively attract, protect, and appropriately manage foreign capital contributing to the sound development of the national economy and the improvement of balance of payments. The main text of the above provision provides that a foreign investor shall benefit from tax reduction and exemption for five years from the date of registration only for the property acquired and held in order to conduct a business authorized after completing the foreign capital inducement authorized by the foreign investor and completing the registration of the foreign-capital invested company. The above provision provides that a foreign investor shall not be subject to tax reduction and exemption for five years from the date of acquisition of the property in consideration of the fact that the foreign investor has acquired the property for the original purpose of the business before the registration of the foreign-capital invested company until the foreign-capital invested company completes the payment of the investment authorized and completed the registration of the foreign-capital invested company. Thus, the above provision provides that the property acquired before the registration shall be construed as "property acquisition tax after registration" after registration.

A. Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 1(1)5 and 25(1)2 of the Local Tax Act. Article 14(4) of the former Foreign Capital Inducement Act (amended by Act No. 4316, Jan. 14, 191)

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13981 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2317), 93Nu19542 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1353) (Gong1353). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1568 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 63), 94Nu1163 delivered on July 14, 1995 (dong)

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu26296 delivered on June 14, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If necessary matters to be stated in the tax notice sent prior to the disposition are properly stated, it is apparent that the taxpayer would not have any impediment to the decision on whether to appeal against the taxation disposition or filing an objection. Thus, even if part of the mentioned matters are omitted in the tax notice, the defect in the tax notice can be corrected or cured (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13981 delivered on July 13, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu19542 delivered on March 25, 1994).

Although the lower court’s reasoning is somewhat inappropriate, it is justifiable to have determined that there is no illegality to revoke the instant disposition, and there is no illegality in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for written notice of tax payment. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are different cases, and thus it is not appropriate to invoke the instant disposition.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 14 (4) of the former Foreign Capital Inducement Act (amended by Act No. 4316, Jan. 14, 1991) provides that "acquisition tax and property tax on property acquired and held by a foreign-capital invested company to carry on its business shall be exempted for five years from the date of registration in accordance with the ratio of foreign investment of the company concerned, only after its registration: Provided, That where a foreign-capital invested company has acquired property for its original purpose before its registration, acquisition tax and property tax on such property shall be exempted for five years from the date of acquisition of property according to the ratio of foreign investment of the company concerned (in cases of acquisition tax and property tax under Article 3 (4) of the Addenda of the amended Local Tax Act (Act No. 4128, Jun. 16, 1989), the above provision provides that "acquisition tax and property tax shall be amended to the acquisition tax, property and aggregate land tax," which are provided only to the foreign-capital investment company to effectively attract and protect the foreign capital for the improvement of balance of payments, and the above provision provides that the foreign-capital investment company has acquired and acquired property for five years from the date of registration.

On the contrary, if the property tax and aggregate land tax are interpreted to be subject to the main sentence only if they are held after registration regardless of the time of acquisition, it is intended to fully reduce or exempt the property tax regardless of the time of acquisition, etc. after registration, and it is an exception to the proviso of the main sentence. The proviso of the main sentence is an exception to the principle, and the benefit of tax reduction or exemption is granted to the property falling under the exception, and as a partial contribution and registration are delayed, there occurs an unreasonable result in the reduction or exemption, the above provision cannot be interpreted as above.

Therefore, in the application of the main text of the above provision, the Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1568 Decided December 22, 1992, which expressed the view that the property tax would only be interpreted as being held after the registration and it is not limited to the property acquired after the registration, shall be discarded.

Although the court below's explanation is partially inappropriate, it is just to determine that the provision of the main sentence is not applied to the property acquired before registration, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision.

There is no reason for this issue.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Yoon-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)