In exceptional cases where a request for review on the recognition decision or the notice of change in income amount is deemed to have been made through a prior trial procedure on the disposition of tax payment notice.

A notice of change in amount of income or a decision on recognition cannot be deemed a tax imposition disposition that is the object of a prior trial or an appeal litigation independently. However, in case where the parties have predicted the disposition of tax payment notice to be inevitably followed after the notice of change in amount of income and made a prior request for examination, it may be deemed a legitimate prior trial as to the disposition of tax payment notice, only in a case where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service accepted it after converting it into the request for examination as to the disposition of tax payment notice after converting it into the request for examination as to

Articles 18 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu442 Decided January 24, 1984, 83Nu589 Decided June 26, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu168 Decided February 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu339 Decided July 21, 1987 (Dong)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 10 others (Attorney Lee In-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu176 delivered on October 30, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The notification of change in the amount of income or the recognition decision itself cannot be deemed a tax imposition disposition that is the object of a prior trial or an appeal litigation. However, in case where the parties have predicted the disposition of tax payment notice that is to be inevitably followed after the notification of change in the amount of income and there are circumstances to deem that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service accepted it, but converted it into the request for examination of the disposition of tax payment notice and examined and determined the propriety of the disposition of tax payment notice, it can be deemed that the above disposition has gone through a legitimate prior trial procedure against the above disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu442, Jan. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu589, Jun. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu168, Feb. 25, 1986).

According to the legal reasoning of the court below, on July 1, 1983, the defendant made a decision on deeming the income amount as stated in the judgment of the court below with respect to the reorganization company Gap-class earned income tax and other income tax were imposed on September 17, 1983. On August 15, 1983, the plaintiff who was the administrator of the reorganization company after receipt of the above notice on the change of income amount, made a request for examination or a request for judgment on the above change of income amount to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on August 29, 1983 and received no mention of the above disposition after the above request for examination, and there was no review or determination as to the propriety of the disposition of taxation of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as unlawful in the judgment of the court below as to this part of this case. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the reorganization company's debt structure has deteriorated due to business depression and continued loss, the court below, based on macro-Evidence, entered the sales ledger and the total account ledger, etc. in the books of account as if the reorganization company borrowed a financing bill from the trading line, such as the non-party member company, etc. to receive financial benefits, and entered the products equivalent to its par value in order to obtain financial benefits, and entered the said financing bill in the books of account such as sales ledger and the total account ledger, etc., while the defendant confirmed the said financing bill as a bill of exchange and used it at a discount from the transaction bank until January 12, 1981 through the method of using it at a discount from the transaction bank as the bill of exchange, until January 12, 1981, determined the fact that each of the above financing notes was entered in the books of account and rejected the disposition of taxation as above.

In comparison with the records, the court below's above fact-finding is justified, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing.

We cannot accept this issue, starting from the criticism of the fact-finding, which is a whole jurisdiction of the court below.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)