The validity of a tax disposition based on a tax payment notice without stating the tax base and the calculation basis thereof;

The purport of the provision that a tax notice shall be given along with the tax base and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax, etc. is to ensure fairness in tax administration by having the disposition authority exclude, prudent and reasonable disposition in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, and at the same time, to ensure convenience in the decision of objection and appeal by clearly notifying the taxpayers of the details of the disposition. Therefore, this provision is a mandatory provision, and if the same is omitted in the tax notice, the taxation disposition itself is unlawful, and it is subject

Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139 delivered on March 23, 1982

Rador’s Quantity

The director of the tax office

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 16,234,017 and defense tax of KRW 598,228 that the Defendant notified to the Plaintiff as of August 6, 1980 shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) The non-party East Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd.") is a corporation that manufactures and sells spirits, and the defendant decided to conduct an estimated investigation of KRW 213,15,935 of the non-party Co., Ltd. from January 1, 1978 to June 16, 1978, which included it in the non-party Co., Ltd.'s gross income and imposed global income tax of KRW 16,234,017 and KRW 598,228 of the defense tax additionally on August 6, 1980 on the plaintiff as the representative of the non-party Co., Ltd.

(2) The summary of the plaintiff 1's claim is 3,937,51 won from January 1, 1978 to June 1978. The defendant decided that the plaintiff 2's income during the above period is 213,15,935 won and omitted sales during the above period. Further, the non-party 2 should keep the books of tax law and make an on-site investigation so that the amount of income can be calculated based on the books of tax law and documentary evidence. Thus, the defendant's additional imposition disposition of corporate tax on the non-party 3 and additional imposition of tax base against the plaintiff 17 for the above 70th 7th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 9th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 96th 7th 7th 7th 97th 7th 7th 7th 197th 197th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 3th 3rd 722222222.

(3) According to the provisions of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act (the same purport is that Article 28(1) of the former Act is the same), if the head of a tax office or the head of a Gun desires to collect national taxes, he shall issue a notice stating the tax base and amount of the national taxes, the grounds for calculating the tax payment period and the place for payment to taxpayers. According to the provisions of Article 128 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 293, Dec. 22, 1976; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Government shall inform the Plaintiff of the tax base and amount of tax and other necessary matters determined pursuant to the provisions of Articles 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act by stating the tax base and amount of tax to be stated in the tax base and amount of tax to be stated in the tax payment notice by August 1 through 16 of each year. The purport of Article 127 of the Income Tax Act is that if the tax base and amount of tax to be stated in the tax payment notice should be stated in writing without delay.

(4) If so, in notifying the Plaintiff of the instant decision on imposition, the instant tax disposition itself is unlawful and thus becomes subject to cancellation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion is not necessary to determine, and the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 16,234,017, and the defense tax of KRW 598,228, which the Defendant notified to the Plaintiff as of August 6, 1980, shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by the Defendant, who is the losing party, at the Defendant’s expense.

Judges Yoon-dae (Presiding Judge)