A. The purport of the provision of Article 189(3) of the Civil Procedure Act and whether, in the event of a judge replacement under the same provision, a new question shall be made to the witness previously examined (negative)

B. In a case where the place for payment of the tax amount of the taxable year when a taxation disposition was issued was indicated, but a tax notice omitted the basis for calculating the tax amount was issued and served, whether such defect can be deemed as void as a matter of course (negative)

A. Article 189(3) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a judge of a single case is replaced, or when a majority of a judge of a collegiate panel is replaced, if a party requests re-examination of the previous witness, the court shall conduct such examination. This provision provides that a judge may ascertain the gist of the statement of a witness previously examined through the oral proceedings or the entry of the protocol of examination of witness. However, the increase in a witness's statement, which may have a significant influence on the judge's examination, can not be known only by the entry of the protocol of examination of witness, which is a document, in which case the statement of the protocol of examination of witness, which is a document, can not be known. Thus, the purport of Article 189(3) of the Civil Procedure Act lies in allowing a judge who is replaced by re-examination to obtain a direct examination. Thus, if the party requests re-examination, it does not necessarily require re-examination at any time in light of the status of litigation, and if the party does not have dispute at the time of the previous examination, it is not likely that re-examination may not be completed in accordance with evidence.

B. If the tax year, tax item, tax amount, deadline for payment, and place for payment specified in the taxation disposition but were served with a tax notice omitted the basis for calculation of each tax amount, such defect in the written tax notice is deemed not to constitute an essential element of the taxation disposition, as long as the written tax notice has been served. As such, the foregoing defect is a separate issue that the said taxation disposition becomes subject to revocation, and it cannot be said that it is void as a matter of course.

A. Article 263 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act). Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu545 decided Nov. 22, 1988 (Gong1989,27) 90Nu7401 decided Apr. 9, 1991 (Gong1991,1393)

Plaintiff

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu193 delivered on January 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 189(3) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a judge of a single case is replaced, or when a majority of a judge of a collegiate panel is replaced, if a party requests re-examination of the previous witness, the court shall conduct such examination. This provision provides that a judge may ascertain the gist of the statement of a witness previously examined through the oral proceedings or the entry of the protocol of examination of witness. However, the increase in a witness's statement, which may have a significant influence on the judge's examination, can not be known only by the entry of the protocol of examination of witness, which is a document, in which case the statement of the protocol of examination of witness, which is a document, can not be known. Thus, the purport of Article 189(3) of the Civil Procedure Act lies in allowing a judge who is replaced by re-examination to obtain a direct examination. Thus, if the party requests re-examination, it does not necessarily require re-examination at any time in light of the status of litigation, and if the party does not have dispute at the time of the previous examination, it is not likely that re-examination may not be completed in accordance with evidence.

B. The court below, upon the application of the defendant, examined the non-party witness on the 14th day for pleading (3. 25. 14:00 on March 25, 198), and thereafter, when all judges are replaced, the plaintiff applied for a re-examination of the above witness several times. However, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit that the court below decided not to adopt the plaintiff's above evidence as evidence and closed the pleading and adopted the witness's testimony as evidence to recognize the facts. However, according to related evidence and records, the court below's failure to adopt the plaintiff's re-examination of the above witness is justified in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of Article 189 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

C. In addition, according to the records, the court below did not only have followed the procedure in which both parties make a statement of the result of the previous pleadings by renewal of pleadings whenever the judge's concurrences, but also has closed the pleading after both parties expressed a litigation relation and present the result of examination of evidence at the third third date for pleading (which on November 27, 191), and then the judge involved in the pleading at the time when the pleading is closed. Since it is apparent that the judgment of the court below was made at the time when the pleading is closed, the court below did not err by violating Article 27 (1) of the Constitution that guarantees the right to a trial by law, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by a judge who is not entitled to participate in the judgment by law, pursuant to the Constitution and the law.

D. Ultimately, there is no reason to discuss all.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant specified the tax year, tax item, tax amount, payment period, and place of payment in the taxation disposition of this case, but omitted the basis for calculating each tax amount, issued a tax notice to the plaintiff, and held that the above defect in the written tax notice is not an essential element of the taxation disposition of this case so long as the notice was delivered to the plaintiff, so such defect does not constitute an essential element of the taxation disposition of this case. Thus, in light of relevant evidence and the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination of the court below's determination is justified. The judgment of the court below is justified. The judgment of 84Nu243 delivered on December 10, 1985, which is cited as a precedent, ruled that the taxation disposition of this case itself is unlawful and thus, it is not appropriate to apply in this case because it ruled that if the tax notice was omitted as the ground for calculating the tax amount.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, each tax amount of the instant taxation stated in the column for the purport of the claim of the judgment of the court below is clear that the defendant stated only the remaining tax amount after deducting the tax amount which was partially revoked due to the determination of correction of reduction thereafter from the tax amount of the original taxation disposition. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by

In conclusion, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below because it is merely because it did not state the reason for violation of Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 3661 of Dec. 19, 1983) or criticizes that there is an error of law against the reason for violation of Article 9 (1) of the same Act.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

According to the records, although the plaintiff applied for an order to submit documents as evidence, it is evident that the evidence is not the only evidence as to the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the court below's decision which did not adopt the evidence as evidence does not err in the law like the theory of lawsuit, and according to the records, the plaintiff deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to present or prove his opinion, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as unlawful or there is a ground for appeal under Article 394 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)