Whether it is possible to seek revocation of the disposition imposing the resident tax to impose the income tax on the ground of illegality in the determination of the income tax amount.

According to the provisions of subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 172, Article 173(2) and Article 176 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2945 of Dec. 31, 1976), the resident tax to be imposed shall be imposed on an individual or corporation liable for income tax in the relevant Si/Gun based on the amount of income tax imposed under the Income Tax Act as the tax base for the income tax imposed by the relevant Si/Gun. Thus, it is premised on the existence of liability for income tax, but the amount of income tax imposed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act is nothing more than the tax base for the resident tax to be imposed, and thus, the revocation of the disposition of imposing the resident tax

Articles 172, 173, and 176 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976); Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu99 Decided March 27, 1984, 85Nu678 Decided June 10, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Seongbuk-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1058 delivered on July 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Articles 172 subparag. 2 and 3, 173(2) and 176 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945), the resident tax to be imposed on an individual or corporation liable for income tax in the Si/Gun as the tax base of the income tax imposed under the Income Tax Act is imposed on such individual or corporation. Thus, the existence of liability for income tax is premised on the existence of liability for income tax. However, since the income tax imposed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act is nothing more than the tax base of the resident tax to be imposed on the income tax, the resident tax to be imposed on the tax base can seek revocation of the disposition imposing the income tax for the reason of illegality in the determination of the relevant income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu99, Mar. 27, 1984). It is without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)