Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal incurred by the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and by the defendant's appeal.

A. As to the first ground for appeal:

In a case where a judgment revoking a tax disposition has become final and conclusive because the procedure or form of taxation was erroneous, the tax authority may supplement the grounds for illegality and make a new tax disposition again unless the right to impose the tax is extinguished. Since the new tax disposition is a separate disposition from the previous tax disposition that was revoked by a final and conclusive judgment, it shall not be deemed that the previous tax disposition overlaps with the previous tax disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu231, Nov. 11, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu91, Feb. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu91, Sept. 21, 1983). For the same purport, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment ordering cancellation of the tax disposition on the ground that the previous tax disposition was not stated in the grounds that the grounds for calculation of the tax amount were not stated in the tax notice, and as the judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendant’s revocation of the previous tax disposition was legitimate, and the purport of the judgment cited in the lawsuit cannot be accepted.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased 37,483,790 won in total during the business year of 1979 and sold 44,980,548 won in total and omitted a report of purchase and sale. The plaintiff omitted a report of sale of 7,081,350 won in the taxable period of the second half-yearly value-added tax on 1980, and the plaintiff during the same taxable period, 345,045,517 won in 345,000 won in 382,378,480 won in 197 and 62,667,037 won in 20 won in 197, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the purchase and sale of additional taxes in 200,000 won in 200 won in 20,000 won in 200 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,00 won in .

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff paid various expenses as stated in the secret book column of the attached Table 1979 in the business year of 1979 when the plaintiff actually conducted the business affairs of the corporation, based on the evidence and the whole purport of oral argument. The defendant recognized the omission of sale by the plaintiff's secret book, and the defendant recognized the omission of sale by the plaintiff's secret book, and deducted the travel expenses of 12,568,605 won as reported by the plaintiff at the time of the return of the tax base amount of the corporate tax, and the travel expenses of 6,198,18,180 won as travel expenses and transportation expenses, and the remaining amount of 6,370,425 won as deductible expenses and the defendant's disposition of 6,370,425 won as the processed expenses are reasonable, and therefore, the plaintiff's argument is groundless, but it is clear that the remaining expenses on the secret book were actually paid to the corporation's business affairs.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the costs of appeal against the defendant are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the appeal against the defendant.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)