Whether a disposition of tax payment notice that is defective after the notice of change in income amount is cured.

Even if the defendant (the director of the tax office) notified the plaintiff of the disposition of bonus by the notice of change in the amount of income after the disposition of the tax payment notice, it cannot be said that the defects of the notice disposition previously taken place

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act

Commercial Code of Korea

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu419 delivered on January 20, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

In comparison with the judgment below's records, the court below's decision that the plaintiff did not file an appeal against the disposition on the attached list (1), (4), (5), and (6) of this case's notification disposition is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the scope of the appeal request, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is groundless.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that each of the above measures of the court below is unlawful when the plaintiff did not receive the notice of change in the amount of income from the bonus disposition from the defendant when the plaintiff was the original adjudication, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff received the notice of change in the amount of income from the bonus disposition from the defendant. The court below held that the above measures of the court below are just and correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory in the process of documentary evidence, and even if the defendant notified the plaintiff of the fact of change in the amount of income by the notice of change in the amount of income from the bonus disposition from the defendant around the beginning of December 1979, which was after the notice of this case, the defect of the notice disposition that was made before that time cannot be said to be cured. This argument is without merit.

3. All appeals 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 O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)