(a) Whether a bonus disposal under the Corporate Tax Act or a notice of change of income amount under the Income Tax Act is an administrative disposition subject to a transfer procedure or appeal litigation independently;

(b) Procedures for filing a request for examination and a disposition of tax payment notice concerning the notification of change in income amount;

(a) No taxation authority’s bonus disposal under the Corporate Tax Act or notification itself of change of income amount under the Income Tax Act shall be an administrative disposition subject to a prior trial procedure or appeal litigation independently;

B. In a case where the relevant party predicted the disposition of tax payment notice that will be inevitably followed after receiving the notice on change in income amount and requested an examination in advance, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may deem that the said disposition has gone through lawful ex officio proceedings on the disposition of tax payment notice, only in a case where any circumstances exist to deem that it was examined and determined after the disposition of tax payment notice was accepted and then the request for examination,

Articles 18 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150 (4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu484 delivered on December 27, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu442 delivered on January 24, 1984

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Head of Dong Busan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu196 delivered on April 2, 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 court below is without any dispute between the parties. In determining the tax base for each business year of 1981, 1982, and 1983, the defendant, on July 18, 1984, considered the non-performing debt and disguised loan as assets omission and disposed of as bonus for the representative, and the plaintiff, on September 13, 198 of the same year, raised an objection to the purport that the correction of the above amount of income was changed because the above notice of change was unfairly calculated in earnings, and the request for review was dismissed on December 22, 1985, and the above company did not pay the withholding tax for the above recognized amount within the prescribed period of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the court below's determination of the above amount of income cannot be seen as being subject to review or determination of the above amount of income, and it cannot be seen as being subject to review or determination of the above tax disposition at the court of the first instance, and it cannot be seen as being subject to review or determination of the above tax disposition at the court.

In addition, the bonus disposal under the Corporate Tax Act or the notice of change in the amount of income under the Income Tax Act cannot be deemed an administrative disposition independently subject to a prior trial or appeal litigation. However, in case where the parties predicted the disposition of tax payment notice to be inevitably followed after the receipt of the notice of change in amount of income and requested a prior review, it can be deemed that the above disposition of tax payment notice was duly conducted through a prior trial procedure, only when there are circumstances that can be deemed that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. received it, but later converted it into the request for review, etc. after the disposition of tax payment notice was made, and the propriety of the disposition of tax payment notice should be deemed to have been deliberated and determined. Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)