If necessary entries are omitted in the notice of notice of payment of housing site excess ownership charges, but such entries are properly stated in the notice of notice of delivery, whether such defects are cured (affirmative)

In imposing the excess ownership charges on a housing site, if it is impossible to find out whether the disposition authority imposed the excess ownership charges on a land because it does not specify the subject of imposition of the excess ownership charges in the notice of payment and it is not clear whether the standard amount for imposition by individual housing site is applicable to a certain land, etc., the disposition of imposition is unlawful. However, prior to the disposition of imposition, if the disposition authority has properly stated the necessary matters to be stated in the notice of notice of imposition of the excess ownership charges issued by the person liable for payment pursuant to Article 31 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993), and if the person liable for payment filed an objection prior to the imposition of the excess ownership charges pursuant to Article 31 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the person liable for payment does not have any problem in the decision of objection against the disposition of imposition and objection entirely. Accordingly, the scheduled notice has a function to supplement the

Articles 31 and 32(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993), Article 27(2) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu9696 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2665), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21408 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1292), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7878 delivered on October 15, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3468)

Plaintiff (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Yellow-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu36628 delivered on July 10, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In imposing excess ownership charges, in light of the meaning of Article 32(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) that requires the agency to state a specific matter in its notice of payment and the strongness of the provision thereof, if the disposition agency cannot be seen as imposing excess ownership charges because it does not specify the subject of imposition in its notice of payment, and if it is not known as to whether the standard amount for imposition by individual housing site is too long and applicable to certain land, the disposition is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3824, Dec. 22, 1995; 99Nu3824, Dec. 31, 1995). However, since the necessary entry in the notice of payment on the subject of imposition of excess ownership charges issued by the person liable to pay in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Enforcement Decree is well stated, if the person liable to pay the charges is combined with the notification of payment notice, 1939.

According to the records, the Plaintiff: (a) stated the amount exceeding 152 square meters per 152 square meters per 152 square meters per 152 square meters; (b) 460 square meters per 152 square meters; (c) 1,342 square meters per 152 square meters; and (d) acquired 3 square meters per 193 102.8 square meters per 1986 and 1986.7.22 square meters per 20 square meters per 152 square meters per 20 square meters per 20 square meters per 151 square meters per 151 square meters per 20 and 152 square meters per 20 square meters per 12 square meters per 192.3 square meters per 20 square meters per 196 square meters per 20 square meters per 36 months per 196.3 square meters per 192.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that, in light of the above legal principles, necessary entries are defective in the notice for payment at the time of the instant disposition, and thus, it is legitimate to deem that the above notice for payment was corrected by the notice for scheduled charges, thereby recovering the defect of the tax payment notice.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant's disposition of this case was not made by due notice of payment, but by the entry of the scheduled notice of payment, the defect was not supplemented or cured. Accordingly, the court below did not err in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the notice of payment of excess ownership charges, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)