A. Whether the defect of tax imposition by a tax payment notice in which the taxpayer voluntarily pays the tax imposed and the basis for calculating the tax is omitted is cured (negative)

B. Whether the ground for calculating the amount of tax can only be asserted in an appeal litigation procedure as to the illegality of a tax notice’s omission (affirmative)

A. A tax disposition based on a tax notice that does not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax shall be subject to revocation in violation of the mandatory law. Such defect cannot be deemed as a taxpayer’s failure to assert it in the preceding trial procedure, voluntary payment of the tax imposed thereafter, or healing after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the tax claim.

B. It is difficult to view a tax notice as an additional cause of claim without identity, apart from the fact that a tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, and the basis of calculation are not specified in a tax notice and that it is unlawful later asserted in an appeal litigation proceeding.

A. Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu657 delivered on April 10, 1984

Samyang Tank Terminal Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu809 delivered on May 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

When intending to impose and collect corporate tax under Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act at the time of the instant taxation, the provision that the tax base and tax rate, amount of tax, and the basis for calculation thereof shall be specified in the tax payment notice. It is clear that the provision that the tax authority should exclude the taxpayer from the convenience of tax administration, pay careful and reasonable taxation in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law as prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby ensuring fairness in tax administration, and that the taxpayer should be notified of the details of the taxation disposition in detail, and the taxpayer should be given convenience in filing an objection against the decision on whether to object, and therefore, the imposition by the tax payment notice without the basis for calculating the amount of tax should be revoked in violation of the mandatory law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu133, Mar. 23, 1982; 8Nu657, Apr. 10, 1984).

In addition, Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that taxpayers may be allowed to peruse or copy a written investigation decision or related documents by the tax authorities. However, it is clear that the aforementioned opportunity is guaranteed to taxpayers, and the judgment of the party members cited in the theory is not appropriate.

In addition, it is difficult to regard the ground for illegality as being alleged by the Plaintiff as being not alleged in the preceding trial proceeding, apart from being dismissed as a means of a real-time attack and defense, it is difficult to regard the additional cause of a claim without identity, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that it is contrary to the party members' judgment cited in the theory of lawsuit.

The final appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the final appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)