The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant's above taxation disposition 1982.8.18 of the company's 198.18 and 2 of the above taxation disposition 2 of the company's 1981 and 14.4 of the company's 198.2 of the above taxation disposition 4 of the company's 198.3 of the above taxation disposition 19.4 of the company's 1982 of the above taxation disposition 14 of the company's 197 of the 198.3 of the above taxation disposition 4 of the company's 198.4 of the above taxation disposition 1 of the company's 194 of the 198.3 of the corporate tax law, the plaintiff's 2 of the above taxation disposition 194 of the 19.3 of the company's 19.3 of the above taxation disposition 4 of the 1980 company's 14.3 of the above taxation disposition of the corporation's 19.3 of the above taxation disposition

However, as acknowledged by the court below, if the first and the second and third taxation dispositions differ in their establishment periods, the establishment period alone cannot be deemed as a separate taxation. However, if the second and third taxation dispositions separately notified a payment of part of the tax amount notified in the first taxation disposition, it is clear that the cause of the taxable income in the substance of the taxation, the year of the occurrence, as well as the tax items and the taxpayer are identical. Thus, in such a case, even if the grounds for revocation alleged as a result of the different tax liability establishment period were different, it is reasonable to interpret that even if the lawsuit was pending in the lawsuit of this case, the revocation of the second and third taxation dispositions can be claimed immediately by modifying the purport of the claim in the lawsuit pending in the absence of a separate trial procedure as to the second and third taxation dispositions.

This is because, in the above case, even though each taxation disposition differently changed the timing of establishing the tax liability, the method of attack and defense as to the legitimacy of the taxation disposition is different, and it cannot be deemed that there was a different reason of illegality in substance that can be asserted against the taxation itself. In addition, if the taxation disposition is included in the object of taxation prior to the prior taxation without any different reason of illegality that could be asserted against the object of taxation itself, and the object of the subsequent taxation disposition was examined as to whether it was illegal in the course of undergoing the prior taxation procedure, even if the tax authority or its superior authority did not go through the prior taxation procedure, even if it did not go through the prior taxation procedure, it can be deemed that the prior taxation procedure system was sufficiently achieved in order to relieve taxpayers' rights by re-examine the legitimacy of the subsequent taxation disposition and achieve the unification of the tax administration.

Nevertheless, the court below’s rejection of the lawsuit in this case on the grounds as stated in its holding cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the preceding trial procedure system in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition without exhaust all necessary deliberations on the substantial contents of the second and third taxation dispositions. The allegation contained in this point is with merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the plaintiffs transferred all shares owned by them to others based on evidence, and that the above non-party company continues to conduct normal business activities until December 9, 1981 when the non-party company defaulted even after the transfer of shares by the plaintiffs and an occasional cause for imposing corporate tax in 1981 occurs to the above company only when the above default occurred after the above default. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' appeal is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the defendant's appeal is without merit. The costs of appeal dismissed are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)