Lee Young-woo (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Racing Head of the Tax Office

December 8, 1981

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 5,56,716 and KRW 1,024,523 as notified by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 16, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition of this case;

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's 1, 2, 11, 3-1, 5, 10-1, 2, 4, 5, 6-5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, and 18-2 of the evidence of each of the above 1, 2, 3, 10-1, 3, 5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, and 18 of the tax base return for the above 1, 40-1, 7, 97, 97, 4, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 140, 140, 97, 97, 1979, 2, 1976, 2, 3, 197, 2,

2. Assertion and determination

(1) The plaintiff's attorney did not engage in the business collecting earth, sand, and rock as a farmer in 1978. However, the plaintiff's attorney argues that the plaintiff's tax payment notice was merely a loan to the plaintiff's name on the above land and the 1400 eb.g., death-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, which was acquired from his own funds at the request of the non-party Kim Jung-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do to allow the plaintiff to conduct the business collecting earth, sand and sand.

(2) According to the plaintiff's argument as to the above facts, either ex officio or upon November 14, 1980, a tax payment notice as of June 21, 1979 cannot be viewed as a new disposition separate from that of June 21, 1979, and the defendant ex officio made an error in the above disposition as of June 21, 1979, and it is nothing more than that of the above disposition subordinate to the original disposition as to the above disposition as of June 21, 1979. Thus, even if the plaintiff raised an objection against the above disposition as of June 21, 1979, it can be asserted as a legitimate objection against the above disposition as to the above disposition as of June 16, 1979, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate disposition of tax payment notice as of November 14, 1980, which is subordinate to the above disposition of tax payment notice as of June 16, 197. It is also acknowledged that the plaintiff's request for review against the above disposition as of tax payment notice as of tax disposition as 16th.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this lawsuit is dismissed as it is not necessary to enter the merits, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 29, 1981

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)