Whether a notice of change in income amount issued by the director of the tax office is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

The notification of change in the amount of income to a withholding agent does not directly lead to the collection obligation, and if a notification of tax payment is made to a withholding agent on the next day, it can be contested. Therefore, the notification of the same amount of income is an administrative disposition which is the object of appeal litigation.

Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act; Articles 93(2) and 94-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Hyundai Automobile Transport Corporation

Head of Jeju Tax Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 2,885,267 of corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff on October 31, 1981, and KRW 489,802 of defense tax, shall be revoked.

Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 3,071,476, the defense tax amount of KRW 705,195, and KRW 705,00,000,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 31, 1981.

The lawsuit costs are divided into two parts, one of which is the defendant, and the other one is the plaintiff's own expense.

In the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,885,276, and the defense tax of KRW 489,802, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on October 31, 1981, the imposition of KRW 3,071,476, and the defense tax of KRW 705,195 are revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Facts constituting the basis for the judgment;

(1) The defendant, 2, 3, 3, 1, 4-1 to 13, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 and 4-1 to 3, 4-1, 4-1, 7, 9-1 and 9-2 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the amount of 19-2 shall be calculated on the basis of 7, 40-1 and 9-2 of the company's total income amount for 19-7, 3, 40-1 and 9-2 of the company's income amount for 19-7, 30-1 and 9-2 of the company's income amount for 19-7, 40-7, 400-7, 30-7, 97, 40-1 and 9-1 of the company's income amount for 19-7, 30-7, 97, 97, 43

2. Determination on the part of the claimant

However, in light of the above facts and the whole purport of the testimony of the witness Gap evidence Nos. 17-1 to 78 with respect to whether the measure added to the tax base of the disposition of this case, including the corporate tax of this case, is legitimate or not, the plaintiff company is responsible for adding the revenue and expenditure of the plaintiff company to the direct management of the company as of May 1979. The plaintiff company is responsible for adding the revenue and expenditure of the non-party company's branch to the non-party company of this case as of 7,423,025 won to the non-party of this case's tax base of this case's tax base of this case's 7,423,025 won to the non-party of this case's tax base of this case's tax base of this case's tax base of this case's 60,000 won as the non-party of this case's tax base of this case's 960,000 won as the non-party of this case's tax base of this case's tax base of this case's 7.

3. Determination on the lower part of the incineration

The plaintiff's attorney argues that the tax amount of Class A earned income and 705,195 won of Class A earned income and 705,195 won of the defense tax were subject to the defendant's disposition of imposition prior to the plaintiff's payment of withholding tax, but the defendant collected and paid the tax in accordance with the plaintiff's representative Kim Dong-dong's notification of change in the income amount and did not follow the defendant's disposition of imposition. The plaintiff's legal representative's notification of change in the income amount to the plaintiff is not subject to the duty of collection immediately due to the defendant's notification of change in the income amount, but it can be disputed at the time of a disposition of notice of tax payment to the withholding agent on the next day, so the notification of change in income amount can not be considered as an administrative disposition immediately subject to appeal. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above Class A earned income and defense tax and the part of the lawsuit in this case cannot be viewed as unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax, etc. of this case among the claims of this case is reasonable, and thus, the above Class A earned income tax, defense detailed statement and the part of claim for revocation of the above disposition are unlawful and thus the defects cannot be corrected. Therefore, the lawsuit cost is divided into two parts, and the remaining one is assessed against the defendant and the remaining one is assessed against the plaintiff.

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul's disease