Notification and administrative litigation under Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

In light of its nature, even if an administrative disposition is taken, it is not possible to bring an action for revocation or alteration subject to the whole administrative litigation, and it is not possible to bring an action for criminal procedure only in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Procedure Act, and it cannot be an object of administrative litigation. Thus, if the person subject to the disposition fails to comply with the purport of notification, the fact that the person subject to the disposition has moved to criminal procedure by accusation of the tax office shall be determined by the procedure, and the disposition of notification shall continue to exist separately and shall not be subject to administrative litigation, so it shall not be subject to administrative litigation.

Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sung-dong Tax Office (Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 4293Do7 delivered on February 8, 1961

This appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are as follows: (a) the original judgment falls under a case where there is a special provision regarding the relief for the taxation disposition; (b) so, Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act does not mean the existence of a special provision regarding the cancellation or modification of the taxation disposition by the administrative agency; and (c) even if there is an examination of the prosecution authority on the notification disposition, the notification disposition remains effective; (d) the administrative litigation on the notification disposition should be deemed to be legal basis for the cancellation or modification of the taxation disposition; (e) it is not sufficient to determine that the administrative litigation on the notification disposition is not based on the above legal basis for the cancellation or alteration of the taxation disposition; and (e) there is no provision regarding the imposition of a fine under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which provides that the court below's determination on the legal basis for the cancellation or alteration of the taxation disposition by the court below, and thus, (e) it cannot be seen that the administrative litigation disposition is unlawful on the ground that there is no provision regarding the imposition of a fine under Article 9 of administrative litigation.

In light of the nature of the administrative disposition, it is not possible to bring an action for cancellation or alteration of the entire subject matter of administrative litigation, and it is not possible to bring an action for the criminal procedure only in accordance with the rules and regulations of criminal litigation, and it cannot be the subject matter of administrative litigation. Even if a prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition is improper, it may be judged and corrected only in the manner prescribed by the rules and regulations of criminal litigation, i.e., the method of filing an appeal or arbitration application, and even if the person subject to the notification fails to comply with the purport of the notification, the case subject to the notification shall be finally decided by the procedure, by bringing an accusation against the tax office, and the notification disposition shall continue to exist separately and become effective as it is, so it shall be interpreted that the right and wrong of the notification disposition shall not be subject to administrative litigation, and an administrative litigation against the disposition shall not be deemed as an administrative litigation against the notification, and it shall not be subject to administrative litigation against the disposition, and therefore, it shall not be justified for a judge prior to the conclusion of the judgment pursuant to Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court