Cases in which duplicate imposition disposition is illegal

On June 5, 1978, when the tax authority designated the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer of the non-party company, at the same time notified the non-party company to pay national taxes, additional dues, expenses for disposition on default, etc., and again issued a tax notice on April 19 of the same year without cancelling the previous disposition on the grounds of the same taxable year, items, amount of tax, taxable cause, etc. as before April 12, 1985, the above disposition on default was unlawful, not merely a notice on re-payment, but also a duplicate disposition with the appearance of an independent disposition on

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Daejeon Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1082 Decided March 21, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below confirmed that the defendant designated the plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer on June 5, 1978, and issued a notice of payment of delinquent national taxes and additional dues and expenses for disposition on default, etc. at the same time, again, on April 12, 1985, the court below issued a tax payment notice on April 19 of the same year, which did not cancel the previous disposition on the grounds of the same taxable year, items, amount of tax, reason for taxation, etc. as mentioned above, and issued the tax payment notice on the same day, and the above disposition was unlawful as a double imposition disposition with the appearance of independent disposition, not a simple notice of re-payment. The above judgment of the court

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)