[2] The case holding that in a case where: (a) the tax authority: (b) filed a request for the first and second disposition against the National Tax Tribunal for the trial against the defects, B, C, C, and C to pay the amount of additional tax in accordance with the above decision; and (c) subsequently, the tax authority already transferred the said shares before the date of establishment of the liability for tax payment; and (b) filed a claim for revocation of each disposition, the tax authority filed a claim for revocation of the said disposition, where (a) the tax authority had already filed a claim for the second and third disposition to designate B, C, and C as the oligopolistic shareholder who owns the entire shares of Company A, and (b) the second and third disposition to pay the delinquent value-added tax, etc. for the Company A, and (b) filed a request for the second disposition against the National Tax Tribunal

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. In the tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were taken in the course of step-by-step and development, and are related to each other. Whether the tax authority changed the taxation disposition subject to such disposition during the course of a tax litigation and the reason for illegality exists, or if several persons are subject to the same obligation by the same administrative disposition, the tax authority and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, such as when one of the persons liable for tax payment or when they took lawful step-by-case procedures, and if there are justifiable grounds, such as where the tax authority and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity to re-determine the tax disposition, and it seems that the taxpayer would be harsh to have caused the tax obligor to go through the procedure of the preceding trial, the taxpayer may file an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition even without going through the procedure of the preceding trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du101

B. The court below accepted the judgment of the first instance court. ① The defendant transferred the above 10th to 201. December 31, 204 the company's 200 shares to the 1st 2nd 7th 5th 1st 6th 6th 1st 6th 6th 6th 1st 6th 1st 1st 200 2th 3th 1st 200 2th 1st 3th 200 2th 2th 1st 200 2th 2th 1st 1st 200 2th 2th 1st 200 2th 3th 1st 200 2th 2th 1st 201 2th 3th 1st 206 2th 201 2th 3th 1st 200 2th 1st 200 2th 2016.

C. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records of this case, the plaintiffs' assertion of illegality as to each of the dispositions of this case was made on March 13, 2006 immediately after the dismissal of February 28, 2006, and the third disposition of this case was not an oligopolistic shareholder after the transfer of all of the above company's shares and management rights. The common reasons are common. With respect to the first disposition of this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the National Tax Tribunal had an opportunity to reconsider and correct the facts and issues which have already been the basis of the disposition of this case at the time of the decision of December 22, 2006. The second disposition of this case was made on August 13, 2006 after the plaintiffs' objection against the first disposition was made on December 28, 2006, and the third disposition of this case was rejected separately from the first disposition of this case, and it seems that the plaintiff's appeal against the second disposition of this case was made on December 15, 2007.

Furthermore, even if an administrative litigation is permitted without undergoing the pre-trial procedure in the above case, the purport of Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that if the tax authority uses professional knowledge and experience prior to the filing of a lawsuit on the grounds of mass re-redification, professional technical nature, and due formation of order of taxation disposition, thereby preventing other litigations and clarifying issues relating to facts, and granting higher-ranking tax administration an opportunity for supervision and correction, is unlikely to be disregarded.

Therefore, this part of the taxation disposition that was rejected by the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below shall be deemed to be able to institute an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition even without going through the procedure of

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ above part of the claim was unlawful on the ground that the procedures of the previous trial were not followed with respect to each of the dispositions Nos. 2 and 3 of the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on whether the previous trial

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs and non-party 1 and non-party 2 entered into a share transfer contract to transfer all the shares of the above company owned by them to non-party 4, etc. on August 11, 2003, that the plaintiffs 1 transferred all the shares of the above company to non-party 4, etc. on August 11, 2003 under the corporate register of the above company, that the non-party 2 resigned from the representative director Eul, the non-party 2 Eul, and the auditor. The name of the representative of the above company was changed to non-party 4 on August 29, 2003, and the above company's name was changed to the non-party 2's shareholder registry as of August 18, 2003, and the plaintiff 2 did not actually belong to the above company's shares under the premise that the above company's shares were transferred to non-party 3's shareholder registry or transfer of the above company's shares to non-party 2.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof, the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing

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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)