Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Advance tax notice before a payment notice to a secondary taxpayer
Supreme Court, Sept. 26, 2025, 2025Du32185 (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: 제2차납세고지처분무효확인
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the primary taxpayer's tax obligation has already been fixed, must the tax authority give a secondary taxpayer an advance tax notice before the payment notice, and is such a secondary taxpayer a person covered by item (b) and item (c) of Article 63-14(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes?
Holding
No, it need not. Taking together the function and purpose of an advance tax notice as a prior notice of a decision, the meaning of the secondary liability system and the substantive character of a payment notice to a secondary taxpayer, a separate advance tax notice need not be given at the stage of collecting an already fixed primary tax obligation. A secondary taxpayer, who bears only a supplementary payment obligation for the shortfall that cannot be collected from the primary taxpayer, is not covered by item (b) of Article 63-14(2) of the former Enforcement Decree; nor by item (c), since the 2020 amendment that replaced the term 'tax payment notice' with 'payment notice' merely unified the terminology of the Collection Act.
Points at issue, verbatim
이미 확정된 주된 납세의무의 징수 단계에서 제2차 납세의무자에게 과세예고통지가 별도로 이루어져야 하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a notice of intended tax assessment must separately be given to a secondarily liable taxpayer at the stage of collecting an already determined principal tax liability (negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
위와 같이 과세예고통지가 처분의 사전통지로서 가지는 기능과 목적, 제2차 납세의무 제도의 의의 및 제2차 납세의무자에 대한 납부고지의 실질적 성격 등을 고려하면
Unofficial English translation
as stated above, where, in light of the function and purpose that a notice of intended tax assessment has as prior notice of a disposition, the significance of the secondarily liable taxpayer system, and the substantive nature of the notice of payment to a secondarily liable taxpayer, among other matters,
Factors
- 과세예고통지의 의미 및 과세예고통지로 납세자가 누릴 수 있는 절차적 이익
- 제2차 납세의무자에 대한 납부고지의 실질적 성격 및 이에 앞서 주된 납세의무자의 구체적인 납세의무를 확정하는 절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 제2차 납세의무자는 구 국세기본법 시행령 제63조의14 제2항 제2호에 따른 과세예고통지 대상에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
- 2020. 12. 29. 국세기본법이 개정됨에 따라 구 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항 제3호 본문의 ‘납세고지’ 부분이 ‘납부고지’로 개정된 취지
Unofficial English translation
• The meaning of a notice of intended tax assessment and the procedural benefits that a taxpayer may enjoy through a notice of intended tax assessment
• The substantive nature of the notice of payment to a secondarily liable taxpayer and whether, prior thereto, a procedure to determine the specific tax liability of the principal taxpayer must be carried out (affirmative)
• Whether a secondarily liable taxpayer falls within the scope of those subject to a notice of intended tax assessment under Article 63-14, paragraph (2), subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (negative)
• The intent of the amendment whereby, upon the amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes on December 29, 2020, the part reading 'notice of tax payment' in the main text of Article 81-15, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes was amended to read 'notice of payment'
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2025. 2. 13. 선고 2023두41659 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
see Supreme Court Decision 2023Du41659 decided February 13, 2025
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2025. 9. 4. 선고 2024두47074 판결(공2025하, 1801) / [1] 대법원 1982. 12. 14. 선고 82누192 판결(공1983, 290), 대법원 1998. 10. 27. 선고 98두4535 판결(공1998하, 2802), 대법원 2025. 2. 13. 선고 2023두41659 판결(공2025상, 570), 대법원 2025. 9. 4. 선고 2024두47074 판결(공2025하, 1801)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a secondary taxpayer disputes the amount of the shortfall itself, what opportunity to be heard does the payment notice give that taxpayer before the shortfall is collected from it?
Any amendment to Article 81-15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or to Article 63-14 of its Enforcement Decree would require this entry to be read again, as would a later Supreme Court decision extending or limiting the advance-notice rights of a secondary taxpayer. Supreme Court Decision 2024Du47074 of 4 September 2025, which the Court cites on the same provisions, may be read alongside this entry as earlier authority.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The source addresses both the procedural function and substantive character of the notices and exclusion from specified statutory categories, allowing emphasis on combined consideration or on stated requirements.
이미 확정된 주된 납세의무의 징수 단계에서 제2차 납세의무자에게 과세예고통지가 별도로 이루어져야 하는지 여부(소극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a secondary taxpayer disputes the amount of the shortfall itself, what opportunity to be heard does the payment notice give that taxpayer before the shortfall is collected from it?” vs Independent “What effect would a defect in the primary taxpayer's advance taxation notice have on a subsequent payment notice to a secondary taxpayer?”
The primary reading asks about an opportunity to contest the shortfall before collection, while the independent reading asks how a defective notice to the primary taxpayer affects the secondary taxpayer's payment notice.
이미 확정된 주된 납세의무의 징수 단계에서 제2차 납세의무자에게 과세예고통지가 별도로 이루어져야 하는지 여부(소극)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 10 December 2024 (2023Nu69581), held that the defendant's disposition against the plaintiffs, who were secondary taxpayers, was not procedurally unlawful although no advance tax notice had been given to them. It also held that sending the payment notice to the villa as the plaintiffs' address and its receipt by the caretaker there was not unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the relevant provisions and the settled law, it held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on the scope of advance tax notices, the principles of interpreting tax law, the elements of secondary liability or item (c), and had not failed to examine what it needed to. It likewise found no misreading of the law on the place of service of the payment notice or on the delegation of authority to receive it, and dismissed all the appeals with the unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A stage at which the tax is imposed on the primary taxpayer, where the advance notice serves to let that taxpayer prepare and be heard before a tax assessment.
- A person other than the taxpayer under examination, for whom tax information was confirmed in a tax investigation, since item (b) of Article 63-14(2) names that person as the recipient of the notice.
- A case in which the primary taxpayer's concrete tax obligation has not yet been fixed by a tax assessment or a similar act, since the Court reasoned from the payment notice being an act in the collection of an already fixed obligation.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the recipient is a secondary taxpayer and that a tax assessment or other act has already fixed the primary taxpayer's concrete tax obligation, since the Court relied on the payment notice being a collection-stage act. Then match the version of the Framework Act and its Enforcement Decree in force when the disposition was made, as the Court worked with the pre-2014 and pre-2015 texts. Keep the separate question of service of the payment notice apart, since the Court decided it on its own reasons.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 과세예고통지의 의미 및 과세예고통지로 납세자가 누릴 수 있는 절차적 이익 / 제2차 납세의무자에 대한 납부고지의 실질적 성격 및 이에 앞서 주된 납세의무자의 구체적인 납세의무를 확정하는 절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부(적극) / 이미 확정된 주된 납세의무의 징수 단계에서 제2차 납세의무자에게 과세예고통지가 별도로 이루어져야 하는지 여부(소극) [2] 제2차 납세의무자는 구 국세기본법 시행령 제63조의14 제2항 제2호에 따른 과세예고통지 대상에 해당하는지 여부(소극) / 2020. 12. 29. 국세기본법이 개정됨에 따라 구 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항 제3호 본문의 ‘납세고지’ 부분이 ‘납부고지’로 개정된 취지 / 제2차 납세의무자가 구 국세기본법 시행령 제63조의14 제2항 제3호에 따른 과세예고통지 대상인지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of a notice of intended tax assessment and the procedural benefits that a taxpayer may enjoy through a notice of intended tax assessment / Whether the notice of payment to a secondarily liable taxpayer is substantive in nature and whether, prior thereto, a procedure to determine the specific tax liability of the principal taxpayer must be carried out (affirmative) / Whether a notice of intended tax assessment must separately be given to a secondarily liable taxpayer at the stage of collecting an already determined principal tax liability (negative) [2] Whether a secondarily liable taxpayer falls within the scope of those subject to a notice of intended tax assessment under Article 63-14, paragraph (2), subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (negative) / The intent of the amendment whereby, upon the amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes on December 29, 2020, the part reading 'notice of tax payment' in the main text of Article 81-15, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes was amended to read 'notice of payment' / Whether a secondarily liable taxpayer is subject to a notice of intended tax assessment under Article 63-14, paragraph (2), subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (negative)
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 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
[1] 국세기본법 제38조, 제39조, 제40조, 제41조, 제81조의15 / [2] 구 국세기본법(2014. 12. 23. 법률 제12848호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제81조의15 제1항 제2호(현행 제81조의15 제2항 제2호 참조), 구 국세기본법(2020. 12. 29. 법률 제17758호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제81조의15 제1항 제3호, 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항 제3호, 구 국세기본법 시행령(2015. 2. 3. 대통령령 제26066호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제63조의14 제2항 제2호(현행 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항 제2호 참조), 제3호(현행 국세기본법 제81조의15 제1항 제3호 참조), 구 국세징수법(2020. 12. 29. 법률 제17758호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조(현행 제6조 참조), 제12조(현행 제7조 참조), 국세징수법 제6조, 제7조, 부칙(2020. 12. 29.) 제24조 제7항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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