Whether it can be deemed that a bonus, dividend deeming decision, notice of change in income amount, and a request for a trial has undergone a prior trial procedure for subsequent taxation disposition.

The determination of bonus and dividend deeming, or the notice of change in income amount, are merely the preliminary or prior measures to establish and determine the withholding obligation, and the withholding obligation itself is established and determined at the time of payment or receipt of payment, without waiting for the disposition of lower, etc., and thus, the determination of dividend and dividend deeming, or the notice of change in income amount cannot be deemed the tax imposition disposition subject to appeal proceedings or appeal proceedings independently, and thus, the taxpayer cannot be deemed to have gone through the previous trial proceedings in relation to the taxation of Class A employment income tax, etc., solely on the basis of the fact that the taxpayer has filed a request for examination and request for judgment on change in income

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu589 Decided June 26, 1984 84Nu50 Decided July 8, 1986

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1484 decided May 1, 201

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

Gwangju District Court Decision 85Gu12 delivered on August 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant, after considering the above facts-finding procedure, found that the above non-party 1's non-party 2 purchased the above non-party 3's real estate from the non-party 4's husband, and the above non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's own.

According to the decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the plaintiff's request for review (Evidence A 3) and the decision of the National Tax Tribunal on the plaintiff's request for review (Evidence A 4), each tax amount can be deemed to have been examined and judged by dissatisfied with the above decision of the defendant's bonus and dividend deeming as well as the decision on the tax assessment itself notified as of April 2, 1984. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff asserted that it is improper in each of the above decision, it can be seen that the above decision of the court below's decision of 11,213,570 won and defense income tax of 2,365,760 won and dividend income tax of 1981, and 3,467,480 won and 693,490 won and the decision of the National Tax Tribunal's decision of 1984.17, 1984 that the above decision of the court below's decision of 24,2984,000 won and the above decision of 294.4.1.6

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)