Whether it is possible to seek revocation of a disposition imposing resident tax on which income tax is to be imposed, separately from seeking revocation thereof.

According to the provisions of subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 172 and Article 173 (2) of the Local Tax Act, the term "pro rata income tax" is imposed only on an individual liable to pay income tax, which is the tax base of the income tax imposed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, since the income tax imposed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act is only the tax base of the resident tax to be imposed on an individual, the taxpayer may request revocation of the disposition for imposition of the resident tax, which is the tax base of the income tax, separately from claiming revocation of the disposition for imposition of the

Article 172 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 173

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu99 delivered on March 27, 1984 (Gong1984,821) 85Nu678 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986,882)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu30957 delivered on April 20, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 172 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 173(2) of the Local Tax Act, the term "pro rata income tax" is imposed only on an individual who is liable to pay income tax, which is the tax base of the income tax imposed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, since the income tax imposed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act is not the tax base of the pro rata income tax, the taxpayer can file a claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the resident tax to pay income tax by asserting the illegality of the decision of the pro rata income tax, separate from claiming revocation of the disposition imposing the income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu99, Mar. 27, 1984; Supreme Court en banc Decision 85Nu678, Jun. 10, 1986).

We cannot accept the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles on resident tax to be imposed on income tax.

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

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)