The effect of a tax payment notice where a tax payment notice has been issued again stating the basis for calculating the amount of tax although it was declared illegal as the tax payment notice was omitted but the administrative litigation has been maintained.

When the Defendant imposed corporate tax, etc. on the Plaintiff by calculating the amount of tax by estimation method, but the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against this, and the case was reversed and remanded on the grounds that the basis for calculating the amount of tax was omitted in the relevant tax payment notice, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant again issued the same tax payment notice stating the basis for calculating the amount of tax on the same tax item without maintaining the lawsuit, and if the Defendant served the same tax payment notice again to the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the original disposition was revoked, while the Defendant again issued the tax payment notice merely corrected the ground for calculating the amount of tax omitted in the initial tax payment notice, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant merely corrected

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on February 28, 1984, 84Nu116 delivered on May 9, 1984, 84Nu12 delivered on August 21, 1984

Attorney Park Jong-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the Seoul Han River Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu121 delivered on September 7, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant calculated corporate tax on the plaintiff's 1976 business year (from January 1 to December 31 of the same year) established for the purpose of building and selling a park cemetery and calculated the tax amount by estimation method of corporate tax on the plaintiff's 1976 business year (from January 1 to December 31 of the same year) and Class A earned income tax, and each defense tax on them, and imposed it on the plaintiff as of March 20, 1979, but the plaintiff appealed and remanded the above tax payment notice to the court below on March 23, 1982 on the ground that the plaintiff's objection and the administrative litigation were omitted, and the defendant maintained the above lawsuit as it was (the above lawsuit continues to exist in the Supreme Court as of March 27 of the date of the conclusion of argument at the court below) and delivered the tax payment notice to the plaintiff again, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had already revoked the original tax payment notice as of March 27, 1982.

In light of the records, we examine the fact-finding and the process of its determination by the court below and find it just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and all of the arguments are groundless.

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)