A. The validity of taxation by a tax notice that is not written as the basis for calculating the amount of tax (=the grounds for revocation)

(b)tax administration and taxation practice by a notice of tax payment without stating the basis for calculating the amount of tax;

C. Whether the revocation of a tax disposition by a tax notice with omission of descriptions is significantly inappropriate for public welfare (negative)

A. The provisions of Article 25 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be construed as a mandatory provision that should be strictly construed, because a tax payment notice based on a tax payment notice that does not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in itself is unlawful, while ensuring fairness in tax administration and at the same time, in order to make the taxpayers specifically informed of the details of the imposition disposition in detail to determine whether they are dissatisfied with, and to provide convenience

B. Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to protect taxpayers’ trust by prohibiting retroactive taxation by the tax authority on the ground of a new interpretation or practice that the relevant tax law has been generally accepted by taxpayers. Since the tax authority’s interpretation of the tax-related law or illegal taxation disposition based on the national tax administration, which was returned by the tax authority, is not a provision to relieve taxpayers from remedying illegal taxation based on the interpretation of the tax-related law or the national tax administration, it would be humping up a taxation administration in which the Defendant issued a notice of payment of local tax by a tax notice without stating the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and it cannot be said that the illegal taxation is legitimate on

C. In a case where a tax payment notice contains an error of law that does not state the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and thus revocation of the said taxation disposition, even if the same tax payment notice is to be made by supplementing the items omitted, it cannot be deemed that the revocation of the taxation disposition for which the basis for calculating the amount of tax was omitted is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare.

A. Article 25 of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139 delivered on March 23, 1982, 82Nu350 delivered on September 13, 1983, 82Nu614 delivered on February 14, 1984, 83Nu711 delivered on March 27, 1984, and 83Nu657 delivered on April 10, 1984, 83Nu657 delivered on April 14, 1984, 83Nu614 delivered on February 28, 1984, 83Nu674 delivered on April 13, 1984, 83Nu686 delivered on May 9, 1984

Korea Heavy Industries Corporation

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu526 delivered on November 2, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to Article 25 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a notice of payment of local tax shall be made by the year, item, payment period and amount of the local tax to be paid or paid, a notice of payment stating the grounds for calculation of the amount of tax and the place to be paid. This provision is a mandatory provision to be strictly interpreted and applied to the purport that the taxpayer should be informed in detail of the details of the disposition of tax imposition and give convenience to the decision of objection and appeal of dissatisfaction. Thus, a notice of tax payment for which the grounds for calculation of the amount of tax are not stated shall be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu139, Mar. 23, 1982; 82Nu350, Sept. 13, 1983; 83Nu614, Feb. 14, 1984).

Therefore, the court below's determination that the defendant did not specify the basis for calculating the amount of tax in the tax payment notice of this case is just, and the revocation was made in violation of the tax disposition, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the valid requirements for tax payment notice or in the incomplete hearing.

With respect to the second ground:

Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to protect the trust of taxpayers by prohibiting retroactive taxation by the tax authority on the ground of a new interpretation or practice that the relevant tax law has been accepted by taxpayers. Since the tax authority’s interpretation of the illegal tax law or the illegal taxation disposition based on the national tax administration, which the tax authority made up of the amount of tax, is not a provision to relieve the taxpayers, the Defendant has returned to the Republic of Korea the tax administration for which the notice of payment of local tax was given without stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax as in the theory of lawsuit, and in the meantime, the fact that the taxpayer has been accepted as it is, and thus, the illegal taxation disposition of this case cannot be deemed legitimate.

This paper argues that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles and a misunderstanding of judgment in the judgment of the court below on the ground of a different independent opinion.

With respect to the third point:

In the event that the taxation disposition in this case is revoked, even if the defendant supplements the entries omitted in the notice of tax payment, and thereby makes a new notice of tax payment possible, it cannot be deemed that the revocation of the taxation disposition in this case is significantly inappropriate for the public welfare. Therefore, there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact that the judgment below did not apply Article 12(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)