1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. (1) Article 22-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “The rectification that increases the amount of tax initially finalized under tax-related Acts shall not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or other tax-related Acts with respect to the amount of tax initially finalized.”

In a case where an increase or decrease disposition is made, the original return or decision shall lose its independent existence value by absorbing the increase or decrease disposition. As a matter of principle, only the increase or decrease disposition shall be subject to adjudication in an appeal litigation, and a taxpayer may also assert unlawful grounds for the initial return or decision in the appeal litigation. However, in addition to the language and text of the above provision, even if the legislative purport of the above provision is a increase or decrease disposition, it is intended to restrict any objection against the amount of tax in the initial return or decision that cannot be raised any longer due to the lapse of the period of objection or the period of filing a request for correction, and it is not possible to seek cancellation of the amount of tax that cannot be raised any longer due to the lapse of the period of objection or the period of filing a request for correction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du17390, May 14, 2009; 2010Du9808, Apr. 14, 2011);

(2) Meanwhile, Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides, “A person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return may file a request with the head of the competent tax office within three years after the statutory due date of return elapses for the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax (where any determination or correction is made under the tax-related Acts, referring to the tax base and amount of tax after the determination or correction is made) of the first return and the revised return in any of the following cases.”

However, Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes prior to the amendment by Act No. 8830 of December 31, 2007 stipulates the period for filing a request for correction as three years, regardless of whether the tax authority made a decision or revision, and Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes amended by Act No. 10405 of December 27, 2010 also grants a request for correction within 90 days for increased tax base and tax amount due to the determination or revision of the tax authority. However, even if the former Framework Act on National Taxes has been amended several times, maintaining the period for filing a request for correction for tax base and tax amount initially reported is intended to guarantee taxpayers’ procedural rights and interests. It is reasonable to interpret that, in principle, the period for filing a request for correction can be limited for three years with respect to tax base and tax amount initially reported, and that, in exceptional cases, the period for filing a request for correction may be limited in accordance with the aforementioned provision prior to the amendment of the tax law.

Even if a reduction or correction disposition is a disposition to cancel part of the original return or decision, which is not independent of the original return, and thus is not allowed to object to the reduction or correction disposition. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a "case where a decision or correction is made in accordance with tax-related Acts."

Meanwhile, in a case where an increase or decrease disposition is taken, the initial return, etc. is absorption into the increase or decrease disposition, but all appeals against a request for correction or a disposition of imposition are an objection means with the same purpose to determine whether a legitimate tax base and tax amount exist. Therefore, a taxpayer may not only dispute the increase or decrease disposition as an appeal litigation within the prescribed objection period, but also file a claim for correction within the period for filing a request for correction (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du11733, Apr. 18, 2013). However, it is unreasonable to view that a claim for correction is limited to a taxpayer’s right to claim for correction, which is a separate means of objection with respect to the initial return, even though the period for filing a request for correction on the initial return, etc. remains during which the taxpayer has a legitimate period for filing a request for correction, etc., and thus, it can be sufficiently restricted to the exercise of a new tax base and tax amount for the purpose of seeking prompt stability of tax relations.

In light of the amendment process of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the purport of the correction claim system, and relevant legal principles, even if a taxpayer who filed a return on a tax base within the statutory due date of return does not dispute the disposition due to the decision or correction of the tax authority made thereafter within the statutory due date of return, it shall be deemed that there is no influence on exercising the right to claim for correction of the tax base and amount originally reported and amount of tax within the statutory due to the period of request for correction within three years. “Where there is a decision or correction under tax-related Acts” in which the period of request for correction is limited to the period of filing an objection, such as

B. The lower court determined that the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the initial disposition of this case among the lawsuits of this case seeking the revocation of the instant increased or decreased disposition was unlawful, since the Plaintiffs did not follow the procedures such as filing an objection, request for adjudication, etc. within the objection period, and the initial disposition of this case occurred, and thereafter issued the instant increased or decreased disposition on April 8, 2009.

First of all, in order to cause a dispute over the original disposition of this case, the period of objection or the period of filing a request for correction must expire. However, it is erroneous that the court below determined that the cause of dispute has occurred merely because the period of objection against the original disposition of this case expired.

In addition, according to the evidence duly admitted, the original disposition of this case is a disposition imposing the tax base and tax amount initially reported and revised by the deceased non-party 1, including the plaintiffs, as they are, and the fact that there was the instant increased or decreased disposition on April 8, 2009, which was before the expiration of the period of filing a claim for correction from the statutory due date of return of the plaintiffs' inheritance tax, the period of filing a claim for correction from the statutory due date of return of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs can seek revocation by asserting the illegality of the tax amount increased by the instant increased or decreased disposition

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 22-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and the preceding provision of the amendment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the shares of the deceased non-party 2 and the plaintiffs in the instant real estate registered as co-ownership at the time of the commencement of the instant inheritance were owned by the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, unlike the registration name, and it is difficult to recognize that the shares in the deceased non-party 2 were

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mitigation of the presumption of registration, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)