The burden of proving the necessary entry in a tax notice or notice shall be borne by the taxpayer.

The issue of whether necessary entries are stated in a tax payment notice or a payment notice constitutes legitimate requirements in the tax imposition procedure. Therefore, the tax authority bears the burden of proof, but whether necessary entries are properly stated in a tax payment notice or a payment notice can only be verified by the original or duplicate of the tax payment notice, etc. issued. Therefore, even though the tax authority has made a legitimate resolution of taxation and issued a tax payment notice, etc. in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, it is necessary for a taxpayer who asserts that the necessary entry in a tax payment notice, etc. was omitted if the tax authority did not keep its duplicate separately from the tax authorities under the relevant laws and regulations.

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu326 delivered on October 28, 1986 (dong)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu1017 delivered on June 13, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

In an appeal litigation seeking the cancellation of a tax imposition disposition, the tax authorities have the responsibility to prove that not only the substantial taxation requirements but also the legitimate requirements of the imposition procedure are satisfied (Supreme Court Decision 84Nu225 delivered on December 11, 1984).

Therefore, the issue of whether the necessary entry in the notice of tax disposition or the notice of tax payment on the person liable for secondary tax payment falls under the legitimate requirements in the procedure of tax disposition. Therefore, the tax authority has the burden of proof.

However, the issue of whether the necessary entries are properly stated in the tax payment notice or payment notice can only be determined by the original or duplicate of the issued tax payment notice, etc. Therefore, it is necessary for a taxpayer who asserts that the necessary entries in the tax payment notice, etc. have been omitted if the tax authority did not keep the duplicate of the tax payment notice, etc. separately from the tax authorities under the relevant laws and regulations.

According to the records, the defendant notified the plaintiff as the secondary tax obligor of the tax disposition of this case by the issuance of the tax payment notice attached to the tax payment notice, and the legal form for the tax payment notice under Articles 9 and 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act, which was enforced at the time of the tax disposition of this case, shall include the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the attached Form attached to the receipt kept by the taxpayer. However, the duplicate kept by the tax authority has no separate grounds for calculating the amount of tax, and the records show that the plaintiff did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the tax payment notice attached to the tax payment notice of this case. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff did not submit the tax payment notice of this case is just in its conclusion and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence as argued otherwise.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on evidence: the plaintiff lent funds to the non-party 1 corporation for the purpose of securing loan claims from 1975 to the non-party 1 corporation, the representative director of the Seoul Trust Bank's business division, and kept the checks and checks issued by the non-party 1 for the purpose of issuing checks, and the above company's rubber and seal imprints, etc. for the purpose of managing the above company's funds; the non-party 2 was appointed as the vice-president of the above company as the vice-president of the above company in around 1979; the court below held that the non-party 3,750 shares in the above company's name; the non-party 3 shares in the name of the non-party 1; the non-party 2,500 shares in the name of the non-party 2; the non-party 4 shares in the name of the non-party 2; the non-party 50 shares in the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2500 shares in each of the above corporation's.

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below legitimately acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff acquired the shares of the above non-party company by means of a delivery of share certificates by blank endorsement and held them on the date of establishment of the tax liability. According to the above evidence, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff acquired the shares as above and completed the exchange of the above company's name in the register of shareholders. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or exceeding the judgment as alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)