Advance notice served near the end of the assessment limitation period

1. 01Question

   Where the tax authority gave no advance notice of assessment, or assessed before the pre-assessment reconsideration request or its decision, is the assessment unlawful, and what conditions make it procedurally justified under Article 81-15(3)(iii) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and who must prove them?

2. 02Holding

   In principle, an assessment made without giving the taxpayer a chance at pre-assessment reconsideration is unlawful, unless a special circumstance excludes the advance notice or permits a direct assessment. The three-month exception in Article 81-15(3)(iii) of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not cover a case where the tax authority neglected tax administration for a long time without proper reason and served the advance notice only when the assessment limitation period was about to expire. For the exception to hold, a further proper reason must be found, such as unavoidable circumstances not attributable to the tax authority that left no time for reconsideration before the period expired, and the tax authority must prove it.

   Points at issue, verbatim

   과세관청이 정당한 사유 없이 스스로 과세행정을 장기간 해태하여 부과제척기간 만료일이 임박한 시점에 과세예고통지를 한 경우, 이는 과세관청이 납세자에게 과세전적부심사의 기회를 부여하지 아니한 채 과세처분을 할 수 있는 예외사유에 해당하는지 여부(소극) / 과세관청이 국세기본법 제81조의15 제3항 제3호의 사유를 들어 납세자에게 과세전적부심사의 기회를 부여하지 아니한 채 과세처분으로 나아간 것이 절차상 정당성을 갖추었다고 보기 위한 요건 및 이에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=과세관청)

   Unofficial English translation

   Where the tax authority, having itself neglected tax administration for a prolonged period without justifiable grounds, gives a notice of intended tax assessment at a point in time close to the expiration date of the assessment exclusion period, whether this constitutes a ground on which the tax authority may make a tax assessment without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for pre-assessment review (negative) / The requirements for holding that the tax authority's proceeding with a tax assessment without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for pre-assessment review, on the ground of Article 81-15, paragraph (3), subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, satisfies procedural propriety, and the allocation of the burden of proof thereon (= the tax authority)

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   따라서 과세관청이 국세기본법 제81조의15 제3항 제3호의 사유를 들어 납세자에게 과세전적부심사의 기회를 부여하지 아니한 채 과세처분으로 나아간 것이 절차상 정당성을 갖추었다고 하려면, 과세관청의 귀책사유 없이 부득이한 사정으로 부과제척기간의 만료일이 임박하게 되었고 이로 인하여 부과제척기간의 만료 전까지 과세전적부심사를 거칠 시간적 여유가 없게 되었다는 등의 정당한 사유가 추가로 인정되어야 하고

   Unofficial English translation

   Accordingly, for it to be held that the tax authority's proceeding with a tax assessment without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for pre-assessment review, on the ground of Article 81-15, paragraph (3), subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, satisfies procedural propriety, an additional justifiable ground must be recognized, such as that, due to inevitable circumstances not attributable to the tax authority, the expiration date of the assessment exclusion period became imminent, and that, as a result, there was no time to undergo pre-assessment review before the expiration of the assessment exclusion period, and

5. 05Factors

   • 과세예고통지를 하지 않거나 과세예고통지 후 과세전적부심사 청구나 그에 대한 결정이 있기 전에 과세처분을 한 경우
   • 과세관청이 정당한 사유 없이 스스로 과세행정을 장기간 해태하여 부과제척기간 만료일이 임박한 시점에 과세예고통지를 한 경우
   • 과세관청이 국세기본법 제81조의15 제3항 제3호의 사유를 들어 납세자에게 과세전적부심사의 기회를 부여하지 아니한 채 과세처분으로 나아간 것이 절차상 정당성을 갖추었다고 보기 위한 요건 및 이에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=과세관청)

   Unofficial English translation

   • Where no notice of intended tax assessment is given, or where a tax assessment is made after such notice but before a claim for pre-assessment review is filed or a decision thereon is rendered

   • Where the tax authority, having itself neglected tax administration for a prolonged period without justifiable grounds, gives a notice of intended tax assessment at a point in time close to the expiration date of the assessment exclusion period

   • The requirements for holding that the tax authority's proceeding with a tax assessment without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for pre-assessment review, on the ground of Article 81-15, paragraph (3), subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, satisfies procedural propriety, and the allocation of the burden of proof thereon (= the tax authority)

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2016. 4. 15. 선고 2015두52326 판결, 대법원 2016. 12. 27. 선고 2016두49228 판결 등 참조

   Unofficial English translation

   See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du52326 decided April 15, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2016Du49228 decided December 27, 2016

   Decisions referred to

   [1][2] 대법원 2025. 6. 5. 선고 2025두33014 판결 [1] 대법원 2016. 4. 15. 선고 2015두52326 판결(공2016상, 657), 대법원 2016. 12. 27. 선고 2016두49228 판결(공2017상, 257)

7. 07Burden of proof

   The party asserting Stated in the decision

   이에 관하여는 과세관청이 증명하여야 한다

   Unofficial English translation

   The tax authority must prove this

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   What circumstances count as unavoidable circumstances not attributable to the tax authority that left no time for pre-assessment reconsideration before the limitation period expired?

   The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, on the record of what the tax authority did before serving the advance notice, will show how the added requirement works in practice. Any amendment to Article 81-15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, or a later decision departing from Supreme Court Decision 2025Du33014, would require this entry to be read again.

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.