[1] Whether the basis of calculation of the tax amount should be individually and specifically specified by parcel in the notice of tax payment of land excess profit tax (affirmative)

[2] Whether a defect in a tax payment notice is cured upon the issuance of a notice of expected taxation notice (affirmative)

[3] The scope of application of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act amended by the Constitutional Court's ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution

[1] A tax payment notice shall specify the taxable property so that the taxpayer can know in detail the details of the tax disposition, and specify the particulars that form the basis for calculation of the tax amount, such as the tax base and applicable tax rate. The tax base of the land excess profit tax shall be calculated by lot (Article 11(1) of the Land Excess profit Tax Act). Thus, the basis for calculation of the tax amount should be individually and specifically specified by lot of land subject to taxation even in the tax payment notice.

[2] If a tax notice sent prior to the imposition of a tax notice contains a proper entry, the person liable for tax payment shall not completely interfere with the decision of whether to object to the tax disposition and the appeal of dissatisfaction. Thus, even if a part of the descriptions are omitted in the tax notice, the defect in the tax notice can be corrected or the defect can be corrected.

[3] Article 23 subparag. 1 and subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 14470 on December 31, 1994. This is to be applied to the pertinent case, etc., unless the Constitutional Court removed or revised for the purpose of improvement the unconstitutional elements pointed out in the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court on July 29, 1994.

[1] Article 16 (2) of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 40 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14470 of Dec. 31, 1994); Article 9 (1) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 481 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Article 14 of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 37 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1470 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [3] Article 23 subparagraph 13 and subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1194 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1987) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13981 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2317), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu19542 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1994, 13596 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2665 delivered on September 16, 199) 96Nu1979 delivered on September 196, 193 (Gong1969, 265 delivered on July 29, 199) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Hun-Ba49 delivered on July 29, 194, 193Du19595Da1963997 delivered on May 295, 19699.

Plaintiff

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2284 delivered on August 25, 1993

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. A tax payment notice must specify the taxable property so that the taxpayer can know the details of the tax imposition in detail and specify the matters that form the basis for the calculation of the tax amount, such as the tax base for it and the applicable tax rate (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11944, Jun. 14, 1994, etc.). Since the tax base of the land excess profit tax shall be calculated by lots (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11944, Jun. 14, 1994, Article 11(1) of the Land Excess profit Tax Act), the tax payment notice must specify the basis for the calculation of the tax amount by lots of land subject to taxation individually and specifically. Therefore, even if several parcels of land subject to

However, if the necessary entry in the notice of tax notice sent prior to the disposition was properly stated, the taxpayer shall not be at all hindered in the decision of whether to object to the tax disposition and the appeal for dissatisfaction. Thus, even if part of the entry is omitted in the notice of tax payment, the defect in the notice of tax payment can be corrected or corrected (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu9696 delivered on July 11, 1995, etc.). According to the records, the defendant issued the notice of tax scheduled notice stating the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, etc. for each of the land of this case before the disposition of this case was issued, and the plaintiff requested a review prior to the notice, so the defect in the notice of tax payment of this case shall be cured, and therefore the above error of the court below shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument pointing this out is eventually unacceptable.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff owned the land of this case, which is the actual status as of December 31, 1990, which is the end of the scheduled period for determining the land excess profit tax of this case, and determined that the land of this case is not excluded from idle land because it is not subject to subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14655 of May 30, 192) and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14655 of

However, Article 23 subparag. 1 and subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 14470 on December 31, 1994. This is the Constitutional Court Decision 92HunBa49, 52 delivered on July 29, 1994, which is amended for the purpose of removing or improving unconstitutional elements pointed out in the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court on July 29, 1994, and is all applied to the pertinent case, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16772 delivered on January 26, 1996, etc.). Thus, the court below should review and determine the legitimacy of the taxation of this case by applying the above revised Enforcement Decree.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the land of this case is not excluded from idle land is erroneous in the application of the law and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

There is reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)