[1] Whether the initial taxation disposition is absorption and extinction of the increased tax disposition in case of a increased or decreased tax disposition (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an increase or decrease is made, whether the additional tax collection disposition premised on the initial tax payment period as set forth in the initial tax disposition also becomes invalid (affirmative)

[1] In a case where a tax authority determines the tax base and amount of tax and then finds any omission or error in the tax base and amount of tax, the determination of the increase is not a disposition to determine the amount exceeding the tax base and amount of tax in the initial disposition, but a disposition to determine the tax base and amount of tax in the initial disposition as a whole by including the tax base and amount of tax in the initial disposition according to the results found by a reinvestigation, and thus, if a disposition to adjust the increase is taken, the initial disposition becomes extinct as it was incorporated into the disposition

[2] Since an increase or decrease disposition in the initial taxation disposition becomes extinct by absorbing the initial taxation disposition, it shall also be deemed that the additional tax collection disposition, which is based on the initial tax payment period, also becomes invalid.

[1] Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 4(1) of the former Defense Tax Act (repealed by Act No. 4280, Dec. 31, 1990)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu571 delivered on January 20, 1987 (Gong1987, 372), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9596 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2051), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu837 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2983), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu758 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3952)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and 2 others

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu25908 delivered on July 10, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal and the part of supplement in the briefs submitted after the lapse of the period are also examined.

In a case where a tax authority determines a tax base and amount of tax and finds any omission or error in such tax base and amount of tax, and thus an increase in such tax base and amount of tax is not a disposition to determine the additional tax base and amount exceeding the original tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition, but a determination of the tax base and amount of tax as a whole by including the tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition according to the result of a reinvestigation, and thus, if an increase in tax base and amount of tax is made, the initial disposition becomes extinct as it were incorporated into the increase in tax base and amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu95

As determined by the court below, if the defendant imposed capital gains tax of 143,493,100 won, defense tax of 28,698,610 won on May 15, 1995 on the designated parties, including the plaintiff (appointed parties) and imposed capital gains tax of 143,49,10 won, and defense tax of 28,698,610 won on the said designated parties, and upon the aforementioned designated parties to pay the capital gains tax of June 1, 1995, upon the notice for payment of the above capital gains tax, defense tax, and additional dues thereon, on September 5, 1995 (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989), it should be deemed that the specific disposition of 90,490,390 won and additional dues imposed on the initial defense tax (amended by Act No. 41680 of Dec. 31, 190) were also determined as KRW 930,4390,94190.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)