(b) Where the tax authority issues an application for refund of part of the transfer income tax paid during the period in which a cause for refund arises, and then issues a new disposition to change the tax base of the previous transfer income tax;

C. In the case of the above "B", whether the taxpayer can claim a payment of the tax amount refundable calculated on the premise that the new disposition of tax imposition by civil procedure is not effective in part in the case of the above "B"

B. If, after a taxpayer filed an application for refund of part of the transfer income tax paid during the period in which the cause for refund arises, the tax authorities subsequently impose a new disposition that changed the tax base of the previous transfer income tax, the tax amount to be refunded by the process of such disposition shall be determined based on the changed transfer

C. In the case of the above "B", unless the new disposition of taxation is void or cancelled automatically, it cannot be claimed for payment of the tax amount refundable calculated on the premise that the disposition of taxation becomes invalid partially by civil action.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

If a ground for partial refund of capital gains tax under Article 63(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act occurs after transferring land to another person, the State is the unjust enrichment because it received without any legal ground for the amount to be refunded, and the taxpayer (transferr) is not an administrative litigation against the rejection of refund by the national tax authority, but a civil lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment immediately. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6436 delivered on June 15, 1989) However, as in the case of this case, if the plaintiffs who are liable for tax payment filed an application for partial refund of capital gains tax on the ground of the reasons for refund under the above Article 63(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, if the tax authority newly imposed a disposition changing the tax base of capital gains tax, it shall be determined on the basis of the changed capital gains tax amount that is to be refunded by the process of such disposition.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for refund of part of capital gains tax under the above Act after the plaintiffs rejected the claim for refund at the first time ( July 5, 1986). However, in the previous taxation, the tax base was set in the previous taxation, and determined the amount of refund after calculating the amount of refund as stated in its holding. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim for refund of this case asserted the amount of refund tax as alleged by the plaintiffs under the premise that they dispute the validity of the disposition of imposition based on the above increase in capital gains tax as of July 5, 1986, such as erroneous transfer value or erroneous deduction of necessary expenses. However, unless the above disposition of imposition becomes null and void or cancelled automatically, the plaintiffs' claim for refund of tax amount calculated based on the premise that the above disposition of imposition becomes null and void as a direct civil litigation cannot be filed. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and determination of law is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)