(a) Whether a tax payment notice is appropriate by a tax payment notice without stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax (negative);

B. Whether the defect in the disposition is cured unless the defect in the disposition is disputed in the pre-trial procedure

A. Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are mandatory provisions. Therefore, the notice of local tax payment must be given by a document stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, etc., and the notice of tax payment without stating the grounds therefor is unlawful.

B. The defect in the disposition of taxation cannot be deemed as a remedy for the defect due to the taxpayer’s failure to assert it in the pre-trial procedure or paid taxes thereafter, or the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the tax claim.

(a) Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu133 delivered on March 23, 1982, 81Nu319 delivered on May 11, 1982

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 76Gu95 delivered on June 15, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (including the grounds of supplementary appeal).

Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that when a local tax is to be collected, the head of a local government or a public official delegated by him shall notify a person liable for tax payment or a person liable for extraordinary collection of the payment by a document stating the amount to be paid, time limit, place, and other necessary matters. Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a notice of payment under Article 25 of the Act shall be given by a notice of tax payment stating the following matters:

In addition, such defect in a disposition of taxation cannot be deemed as a remedy for the defect caused by the taxpayer’s failure to assert it in the pre-trial procedure, payment of taxes imposed thereafter, or the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of a tax claim. In addition, the Supreme Court precedents are not appropriate in this case on different issues. Moreover, the theory that the grounds for not dissatisfied with the pre-trial procedure are not asserted in the case, and the assertion of such grounds for not having been asserted in the lawsuit is illegal or unreasonable, or that the revocation of the disposition of taxation after the payment of the tax that was imposed was made, cannot be accepted as an independent opinion. In addition, even if the extinctive prescription period of a tax claim expired, it cannot be said that the revocation of the disposition of this case is significantly inappropriate for public welfare.

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)