(a) Scope of cases where documents may be served to the representative of a joint and several tax obligor pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

(b) The nature of a duty payment notice where the duty base and amount are determined or corrected and such notice is served on a tax payment notice;

A. A tax payment notice that may be served on the holder of a title deed pursuant to the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is limited to a tax payment notice as a so-called collection disposition ordering the performance of specific taxation rights already determined. In a tax payment method, where a tax payment notice is served on a tax payment notice, or where a tax payment notice is served on a non-declaration or non-declaration declaration, and a notice is served on a tax payment notice, the tax base and amount of tax shall be determined or corrected individually for each of the persons jointly liable for tax payment, and only the representative or a person convenience in the collection of national taxes shall not be served on the holder of a title deed pursuant to the provisions of

B. In a case where the tax authorities determine or correct the tax base and the amount of tax and notify the taxpayer of the determination or correction, the duty payment notice also has the nature of the taxation disposition which generates the effect of the determination or correction of the specific tax liability, as well as the nature of the final taxation disposition that orders the performance of the determined tax claim

(a) Article 8 (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on February 28, 1984, 84Nu111 delivered on January 29, 1985

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu882 delivered on January 21, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the provisions of Articles 8(1) and (2) and 10(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, when intending to serve documents on persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment, such documents shall be served on the holder in the name of his/her representative or, when there is no representative, on the holder in the name of his/her domicile, residence, place of business or office. The notice of tax payment also includes the service of the above documents. Thus, under the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the notice of tax payment to persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment is served on the holder in the name of his/her domicile or place of business, etc.

However, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a notice of tax payment that can be served by designating the representative in the name of the person liable for joint and several tax payment shall be limited to a notice of tax payment as a so-called collection order for the performance of the specific tax claims already established, and where a notice of tax payment is served by a notice of tax payment for a tax payment (see Article 128 of the Income Tax Act and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) or where a notice of tax payment is served by a notice of tax payment for a non-reported or non-reported tax return (see Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, for example, Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 99(1) of the same Act) shall be individually imposed on each of the persons liable for joint and several tax payment, and shall not

This is because, as above, when the tax authorities decide or correct the tax base and amount of tax and notify the taxpayers of the decision or correction thereof, the tax payment notice has the nature of the taxation disposition that generates the effect of the specific tax liability determination by notifying the taxpayers of the decision or correction thereof, and also has the nature of the taxation disposition that orders the implementation of the confirmed tax obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on February 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu11 delivered on January 29, 1985). Since the mutual solidarity relationship between the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment is not related to the establishment and confirmation of the tax obligation itself, each specific tax liability should be individually established and determined, and each person jointly and severally liable for tax payment must be notified of the decision or correction that is the requirement of the specific tax liability determination individually.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while imposing value-added tax of KRW 7,746,00 on the non-party and ten other persons on January 1, 1979, the court below acknowledged that the defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 7,746,00 on the non-party and the non-party 10, only served the non-party with a written notice stating "non-party 10 persons," and then issued a tax payment notice or demand notice to the non-party and the plaintiff after correcting the name of the above person liable for tax payment in the form of internal decision as the non-party and the plaintiff. Without being served on the non-party, the court below found that the disposition of this case was a disposition of seizure of the non-party's real estate without a tax payment notice or demand notice to the non-party. The disposition of this case is null and void as it has a significant and obvious defect in the non-party's name without a taxpayer's name being indicated

In light of the records, the defendant decided the tax base of value-added tax and the tax amount of value-added tax on the non-party 10 and served only the non-party 10 on the notice of tax payment, such as the plaintiff's original adjudication. Thus, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for tax payment with the non-party as alleged in the lawsuit, and even if the non-party is the representative, the duty payment notice as a disposition must be individually notified to each of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition of tax payment does not exist, and it should be viewed that the seizure of this case is unlawful without the need to determine the invalidity of the disposition of tax payment.

The judgment of the court below, which held that the above disposition of taxation by the court below is null and void as a tax disposition with a grave and obvious defect in the name of the plaintiff without indicating the title holder, is an inadequate expression, but the conclusion that the attachment of this case, which lacks legitimate tax disposition, is unlawful, is without merit and error.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)