Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Tax notice owed even when the limitation period is under three months
Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 2025, 2023Du51700 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 법인세부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a matter falls within the tax advance notice duty under Article 81-15(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, must the tax authority still give the notice when the period up to the expiry of the assessment limitation period is three months or less, is an assessment made without that notice unlawful absent special circumstances, and who must prove those circumstances?
Holding
Yes on both counts. Where a matter is subject to the advance notice duty, the tax authority must give the notice even where only three months or less remain before the assessment limitation period expires, and an assessment made without it is unlawful unless special circumstances show that procedural propriety was not lost. Such circumstances require, among other things, that the period became imminent through unavoidable events not attributable to the tax authority and that there was a legitimate reason for assessing without the notice, and the tax authority must prove them.
Points at issue, verbatim
구 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항이 정한 과세예고통지 대상에 해당하는 경우, 과세관청은 국세부과 제척기간 만료일까지 기간이 3개월 이하인 때에도 과세예고통지를 하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a case falls under the cases subject to the advance notice of assessment prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 81-15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax authority must give the advance notice of assessment even where the period until the expiration date of the exclusion period for the assessment of national taxes is three months or less (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
따라서 과세관청은 구 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항이 정한 과세예고통지 대상에 해당하는 경우에는 국세부과 제척기간 만료일까지 기간이 3개월 이하인 때에도 과세예고통지를 하여야 하며
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where the case falls under those subject to the advance notice of assessment prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 81-15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, it must give the advance notice of assessment even where the period until the expiration date of the exclusion period for the assessment of national taxes is three months or less, and
Factors
- 구 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항이 정한 과세예고통지 대상에 해당하는 경우
- 과세관청은 국세부과 제척기간 만료일까지 기간이 3개월 이하인 때에도 과세예고통지를 하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 절차적 정당성이 상실되지 않았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한 과세예고통지 없이 이루어진 과세처분은 위법한지 여부(적극)
- 이때 특별한 사정의 존재에 관한 증명책임(=과세관청)
Unofficial English translation
• Where a case falls under the cases subject to the advance notice of assessment prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 81-15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes
• Whether the tax authority must give the advance notice of assessment even where the period until the expiration date of the exclusion period for the assessment of national taxes is three months or less (affirmative)
• Whether, absent special circumstances that can be regarded as not having forfeited procedural legitimacy, a tax assessment made without the advance notice of assessment is unlawful (affirmative)
• The burden of proof as to the existence of such special circumstances on that occasion (=the tax authority)
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
과세예고통지에 관한 절차적 권리가 주로 과세전적부심사에 결부된 것임을 감안하더라도 과세전적부심사에 관한 제3호 규정의 예외사유를 들어 과세예고통지 역시 생략할 수 있다고 쉽사리 해석하여서는 안 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Even considering that the procedural right regarding the advance notice of assessment is mainly connected with the review before assessment, it must not be readily interpreted that the advance notice of assessment may likewise be omitted on the ground of the exception under subparagraph 3 concerning the review before assessment.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
이러한 특별한 사정의 존재는 과세관청이 증명하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The existence of such special circumstances must be proved by the tax authority.
Open question and revisit condition
What degree of delay not attributable to the tax authority and what kind of legitimate reason make the special circumstances that save an assessment made without the advance notice?
Any later decision finding or rejecting such special circumstances on its own facts would show how narrowly the exception is read. So would an amendment to Article 81-15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in particular to the exceptions in paragraph (iii), which would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 7 (burden of proof).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary marks the precedent as a new standard for special circumstances, while the independent could not confirm precedential relation, so the two differ on whether the court set a new test.
과세예고통지에 관한 절차적 권리가 주로 과세전적부심사에 결부된 것임을 감안하더라도 과세전적부심사에 관한 제3호 규정의 예외사유를 들어 과세예고통지 역시 생략할 수 있다고 쉽사리 해석하여서는 안 된다.Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “The party asserting” vs Independent “The opposing party”
The primary labels the burden as on the party asserting, while the independent labels it as on the counterparty, although both texts say the tax authority must prove the circumstances.
이때 특별한 사정의 존재에 관한 증명책임(=과세관청)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 12 July 2023 (2022Nu45953), held that the tax authority had neglected tax administration over a long period and so brought about a period of three months or less to the expiry of the assessment limitation period on its own doing. It held that omitting the advance notice and denying the taxpayer the chance of a pre-assessment impartiality review in those circumstances was not an exception under item (iii) of Article 81-15(3), and that the 2014 business year corporate tax assessment made without the notice infringed the plaintiff's procedural right, its procedural defect being grave, so it cancelled the assessment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons below against the relevant law and the record, it held that the conclusion that the assessment was unlawful was proper, and that the court below had not departed from the limits of free evaluation, misread Article 81-15(3)(iii), the principle of strict construction under the principle of legality in taxation, or violated Supreme Court precedent in a way that affected the judgment. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the tax authority proves special circumstances, namely unavoidable events not attributable to it that made the period to the expiry of the limitation period imminent and a legitimate reason for assessing without the notice.
- An assessment governed by Article 118(1) of the Customs Act, whose proviso Item 1 expressly permits omission of the advance notice in such cases.
- A case in which more than three months remain from the date the notice would be given to the expiry of the assessment limitation period, so that the exception in item (iii) does not arise.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the assessment against the expiry of the assessment limitation period and the date the notice would have been given, since the three-month figure runs from the date of notice to the expiry date. Then collect what shows why the period became imminent and whether the delay was attributable to the tax authority, because the authority bears the burden on the special circumstances as the party asserting them. Finally confirm which version of the Act applies, as the decision applied the former Framework Act on National Taxes before the amendment by Act No. 17758 of 29 December 2020.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항이 정한 과세예고통지 대상에 해당하는 경우, 과세관청은 국세부과 제척기간 만료일까지 기간이 3개월 이하인 때에도 과세예고통지를 하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 절차적 정당성이 상실되지 않았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한 과세예고통지 없이 이루어진 과세처분은 위법한지 여부(적극) 및 이때 특별한 사정의 존재에 관한 증명책임(=과세관청)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a case falls under the cases subject to the advance notice of assessment prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 81-15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax authority must give the advance notice of assessment even where the period until the expiration date of the exclusion period for the assessment of national taxes is three months or less (affirmative) / Whether, absent special circumstances that can be regarded as not having forfeited procedural legitimacy, a tax assessment made without the advance notice of assessment is unlawful (affirmative), and the burden of proof as to the existence of such special circumstances on that occasion (=the tax authority)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
구 국세기본법(2020. 12. 29. 법률 제17758호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제81조의15, 관세법 제118조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger