(a) Where a decision of reduction has been made, the subject of an appeal litigation and the criteria for determining whether to comply with procedures for a prior trial;

(b) Method of serving a tax payment notice on persons confined in prisons;

A. In a case where a correction disposition that reduces the tax base and amount of tax is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, but the substance of which is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, and thereby brings about the favorable effect to taxpayers as to partial revocation of tax amount, and thus, the decision of correction remains unlawful, the subject of an appeal litigation is not revoked by the decision of correction among the initial imposition disposition, and the decision of correction is not the subject of an appeal litigation. In this case, whether the decision of correction was lawful procedure should be determined based on the initial disposition.

B. As there is no provision applicable mutatis mutandis under the Framework Act on National Taxes to the special provisions such as Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions concerning the service of the Civil Procedure Act, a notice of tax payment for a person confined in prison shall be served to the address of the person pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(a) Articles 18 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988,353) 91Nu391 delivered on September 13, 1991 (Gong1991,255) 93Nu989 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong1994Sang,110) B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8029,8036 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1182) 90Nu766 delivered on May 222, 1990 (Gong190,1395)

Plaintiff

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu15603 delivered on November 24, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A disposition to reduce the tax base and amount of tax is not the initial disposition and separate taxation, but the substance is the change of the initial disposition, and thereby brings about a favorable effect to the taxpayer, which is the partial revocation of the tax amount. Thus, in a case where the part of the decision of correction remains illegal without being revoked, the object of an appeal litigation is the remaining part of the original disposition that is not revoked by the decision of correction, and the decision of correction is not the object of an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu989, Nov. 9, 1993; 91Nu391, Sept. 13, 1991). In this case, whether the decision of correction goes through a legitimate pre-trial procedure should be determined based on the initial disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu391

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles or omission of judgment, such as theory of lawsuit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for special provisions such as Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Act and the provisions concerning the service of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the service of a tax payment notice to a person confined in prison shall be made to his/her address pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu776 delivered on May 22, 190).

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff, who is confined in prison, sent the notice of this case to the plaintiff's domicile and received it on August 18, 1992 at the plaintiff's domicile, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

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 the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)