(a) Whether a person can use the land as justifiable grounds that have not been used directly for his/her unique duties within the grace period after acquiring the land;

B. Whether a verbal correction is permitted for the defect of a tax payment notice

(c) Whether any defect can be cured, even if any part of the entries are omitted in the notice of tax imposition, where necessary matters are entered in the notice of tax imposition prior to the notice of tax imposition.

(d) written requirements for supplementing any defect in a tax payment notice in advance;

E. Whether the defect in the tax payment notice can be cured beforehand where the tax payment notice has been issued

A. If no effort is made to use a unique business even after one year has passed since the acquisition of the land, and the application for a building permit was subsequently filed but rejected, the application for a building permit cannot be made as justifiable grounds that have already occurred after the lapse of the grace period and have not been used directly for the unique business within the grace period.

(b) A duty payment notice shall be issued in writing, so it is not allowed to make an oral correction as to whether the correction of the defect should be made in writing.

C. If it is evident that a taxpayer is not at all hindered in the determination of whether he/she is dissatisfied with the disposition and filing an objection, the defect in the tax notice can be supplemented or cured.

(d) A document that can supplement the defects of a tax payment notice in advance is limited to a document that contains the necessary descriptions of a tax payment notice, as well as a document itself requires the tax payment notice to be delivered to the taxpayer prior to the tax payment notice, by statute or at least the internal regulations of the tax authority, with regard to the tax payment notice.

E. A statement of collection is merely an internal document of the tax authority to determine the requirements for collection, but it is not a document delivered to the taxpayer to inform the taxpayer of the basis for calculating the amount of tax. Therefore, the defect in the tax payment notice cannot be cured or supplemented on the ground that a copy of such document is delivered to the taxpayer in advance.

A. Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 84-4(1)(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 190) (d).(e) Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act; Articles 1(1)5 and 25(1) of the Local Tax Act; Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu318 delivered on September 10, 1985 (Gong1985, 1353) 85Nu740 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 815). Supreme Court Decision 83Nu404 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong198, 516) 90Nu3409 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1304). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13981 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2317) 93Nu19542 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194, 19353) 195Nu164959 delivered on May 16, 1965 (Gong1965 delivered on July 196, 1995).

Dr. Musk Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Ulsan City Mayor, Attorneys Ha Man-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu7570 delivered on December 8, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The plaintiff asserted that there is a justifiable reason for the plaintiff to sell the land of this case without using it for its unique duties within the grace period, but the court below did not make an explicit decision on this point as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

However, according to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff did not make any effort to use the land in its unique duties even after one year of the grace period after the acquisition of the land in this case, and the application for a building permit was subsequently rejected, and there is no factual basis. Thus, the rejection of the application for a building permit has already been made after the lapse of the grace period, and it is not a justifiable ground for not being used directly for its unique duties within the grace period (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu318, Sept. 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu740, Apr. 14, 1987). Accordingly, it is clear that the plaintiff's above assertion should be dismissed due to the lack of a reason. Thus, the error of omission of the judgment by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment

There is no reason to discuss.

(2) On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 84-4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 1990), acquisition tax shall be imposed on land for non-business use if the land is not used directly for the corporation's unique duties within one year from the date of its acquisition without justifiable grounds. Thus, the land in this case is not used directly for the corporation's unique duties without justifiable grounds after the lapse of the one-year grace period as seen earlier. Accordingly, it cannot affect the determination of whether the land in this case was converted into the land for non-business use.

Although the reasoning of the court below is inappropriate, it is just to deem the land of this case as a non-business land, and there is no error of law as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason for this issue.

(3) On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the procedural defect at the time of the instant tax disposition was cured by the issuance of the pertinent tax collection protocol, etc., on the ground that the public official affiliated with the Defendant explained the details of taxation to the Plaintiff’s vice president and employees before rendering the instant tax disposition, and that the Plaintiff’s issuance of a copy of the tax collection protocol in detail stating the taxable object, the grounds for taxation, the tax base, and the tax base, etc. was considered not to impede

However, since a tax payment notice must be issued in writing, it is not permitted to correct the defect orally and orally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3409, Mar. 27, 1991). Meanwhile, if it is evident that a taxpayer is not at all hindered in the decision of whether to object to the tax payment notice or filing an objection because the tax office has properly stated the necessary entries in the notice prior to the tax payment notice, etc., and it is evident that the taxpayer has not been hindered in the decision of whether to object to the tax disposition or in filing an objection, the defect in the tax payment notice can be corrected or cured (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Nu13981, Jul. 13, 1993; 94Nu9696, Jul. 11, 1995). Accordingly, a document that can supplement the defect in the tax payment notice can not be completely stated in the necessary entries of the tax payment notice or its internal regulations so that the tax office’s tax payment notice and its internal requirements can be limited to the tax payment notice.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defect of tax payment notice and the recovery or supplementation thereof, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

There is reason to point this out.

(4) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)