[행정처분취소][집20(1)행,026]
(a)A decision to revoke a disposition of gift tax imposed by a ruling authority in a request for review in accordance with the National Tax Review Request Act shall be binding on the administrative authority and the disposition authority, and shall not make any decision or disposition contrary to it, and shall be null and void even if that authority has made it;
(b)The donor and the donor are liable after a final and conclusive obligation to pay the donor, who is the principal taxpayer, and the donor shall not be liable for such payment if the donor did not impose any tax liability or the tax liability imposed is finally cancelled on the donor.
A. The decision of revocation of the adjudication administrative agency shall bind the administrative agency and the disposition agency concerned, and the revocation of the disposition of gift tax on this case made by the disposition agency pursuant to the decision shall affect the parties concerned finally, and the ruling agency or the disposition agency shall not make any decision contrary to it or make any other disposition, and it shall be null and void even if the disposition agency again made the disposition of gift tax imposition in accordance with the direction of the Board
B. In a request for review under the National Tax Examination Request Act, a ruling of revocation on the disposition of gift tax imposed by a ruling authority is binding on the administrative agency and the disposition authority, and each of the above offices may not make any decision or disposition contrary to it, and it shall be null and void even if it was made.
Article 5 of the National Tax Examination Request Act (Act No. 1962), Article 7 of the National Tax Examination Request Act (Act No. 1962), Article 31(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act (Act No. 1997)
Plaintiff
Head of the Jeonju Tax Office
Gwangju High Court Decision 70Gu5 delivered on June 22, 1971
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the original decision, the decision of revocation on the original decision made by the director of Gwangju Regional Tax Office, which is the administrative agency of adjudication, shall bind the defendant, who is the administrative agency of Gwangju Regional Tax Office, and according to the decision, the cancellation of the disposition of revocation on the original decision made by the defendant becomes conclusive, and the non-party shall not be liable to pay the gift tax again for the reasons as stated in the original decision. After this decision, the adjudication administrative agency of Gwangju Regional Tax Office or the defendant cannot make any decision against it, and even if the defendant again made a disposition of imposition on the non-party pursuant to the direction of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it shall be null and void, and the donor shall be liable to pay the gift tax to the non-party pursuant to Article 31 (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act. However, even if the plaintiff is a donor, it is merely a joint and several liability for payment on the gift tax of the person who receives the gift, and if the plaintiff is not liable to pay the gift tax after the decision becomes final and conclusive, the defendant shall not be held liable to pay the gift tax again to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.
The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho