(a) Whether the determination of a taxpayer on a tax payment notice depends on a post-verification by the tax authority;

(b) The case holding that, in imposing and notifying the comprehensive income tax on the housing association, if the association head entered his/her personal name in the indication of the person liable for tax payment and served it on the association head, taxation against an individual

A. The determination of a taxpayer on a tax payment notice shall be objectively determined in accordance with the formal description of the tax payment notice, and the identity of the taxpayer shall not depend upon the post-verification by the tax authority.

(b) The case holding that, in imposing and notifying the comprehensive income tax on a housing association, if the name of the head of the association with the indication of the person liable for tax payment was stated and served on the head of the association, it is unlawful

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

The Director of the Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu34604 delivered on June 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The determination of a taxpayer on a tax payment notice shall be objectively determined in accordance with the formal description of the tax payment notice, and the identity of the taxpayer shall not be determined depending on the post-verification by the tax authorities (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14083 delivered on April 27, 1993).

The court below found that the head of the association determined the non-party Samsung Urban Redevelopment Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party partnership") as the taxpayer and imposed and notified the comprehensive income tax at the time of original adjudication on the non-party partnership, the plaintiff's name and corporate name as "the plaintiff" and the non-party partnership's address as "the plaintiff" in the name and corporate name as "the non-party partnership's address are stated and the non-party partnership's address is stated, and the above tax notice was served on the plaintiff. The court below determined that the tax disposition in this case was illegal because it was imposed and notified to the plaintiff for the non-party individual without tax liability. It did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principle

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)