(a) Whether a notice of tax payment is appropriate for calculating the amount of tax without a statement of tax payment on which the grounds for calculating the amount of tax are not written and whether a defect therapy is cured if the person liable for duty payment knows the basis

(b) Judgment on assessment that causes a taxpayer to repeat the procedures for notification by supplementing any details omitted in a tax payment notice;

A. The provisions of Article 25 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are to ensure fairness in tax administration and, at the same time, to the purport that a taxpayer is informed of the details of the disposition of imposition in detail in order to make a decision on whether to object and to provide convenience in filing an appeal. As such, a tax payment notice based on a tax payment notice without the grounds for calculating the amount of tax cannot be deemed an unlawful disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s ground for calculating the amount of tax does not affect the judgment of illegality.

B. Since it cannot be deemed that the revocation of illegal disposition, thereby allowing an administrative agency to make a new tax payment notice by supplementing the items omitted in a tax payment notice, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by failing to render a judgment on circumstances under Article 12(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

(a) Article 25 of the Local Tax Act; Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 12(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 25 of the Local Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139 delivered on March 23, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu350 delivered on September 13, 1983

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

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

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu222 delivered on October 6, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

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 given by a notice of tax payment stating the year, item, payment period, and amount of the local tax to be paid or paid, the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the place of payment. The above provision is a mandatory provision in order to ensure the fairness of tax administration and at the same time to ensure the convenience of a decision on whether to object to the taxpayer by clearly notifying the details of the disposition of taxation, and to ensure the convenience in filing an appeal. Thus, the notice of tax payment without the grounds for calculating the amount of tax shall not be deemed an unlawful disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139, Mar. 23, 1982; 82Nu350, Sept. 13, 1983).

Therefore, in this case, the court below's order to revoke the tax disposition of this case on the ground that the defendant's tax payment notice of this case did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the tax payment notice of this case, was just, and since the tax payment notice failed to state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax and deemed illegal as a disposition contrary to the mandatory provisions, the plaintiff's determination of the grounds for calculating the amount of tax should not affect the judgment of illegality. Thus, there is no ground for appeal that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The issue is that even if the disposition of this case is revoked because there is no statement in the basis for calculating the amount of tax, the defendant will supplement the statement and make a new disposition of imposition. Thus, even if the disposition of this case is unlawful due to the omission of the entries in the notice, it is not considerably appropriate for the public welfare and thus it is not appropriate to dismiss the claim of this case under Article 12 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, the judgment below which did not reach this point is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of the above Article, and thus, it is not applied.

However, it is not reasonable to conclude that the cancellation of the instant disposition, thereby allowing the defendant to make a new tax payment notice by supplementing the items omitted in the tax payment notice, and thus, it cannot be seen as significantly inappropriate for the public welfare.

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 Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)