Whether there is a benefit of a lawsuit seeking revocation against a disposition to revoke a disposition to revoke a request for revocation of a request for revocation of a request for revocation of a request for revocation of a request for revocation of a request for revocation of a request for revocation of a disposition to revoke a request for revocation (negative)

Where a taxpayer files a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition of revocation of a disposition of revocation of a request for reduction or correction and such disposition is subject to revocation, barring special circumstances, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition of revocation of a request for reduction or correction is unlawful as there is no benefit or need to seek revocation, unless there are other special circumstances.

Article 32 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998) (see current Article 66 (2)) Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5133 Delivered on October 14, 2005

Korean Broadcasting System

Yeongdeungpo Tax Office (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu1044 delivered on July 9, 2004

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Although the tax base and tax amount of a domestic corporation for each business year are finalized by a corporation’s declaration under Article 26 of the former Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter “former Corporate Tax Act”), where the tax authorities consider that the details of the return are erroneous or incomplete even after the tax base and tax amount are reported and thus make a correction disposition for the tax base and tax amount to be increased pursuant to Article 32(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act, the correction disposition does not determine only the increased tax base and tax amount without additional determination for the tax base and tax amount determined by the taxpayer’s declaration, but also the tax base and tax amount as a whole including the original final and conclusive tax base and tax amount and tax amount, if the correction disposition becomes final and conclusive, the taxpayer may take the correction disposition only as the object of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu9596, May 26, 199; 200Nu138, May 13, 1997).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff filed a revised disposition on March 31, 1997; 378,537,452,310 won which shall be included in the amount of TV license fees (hereinafter referred to as "receiving fees"); 67,121,248,06 won; 16,47,09 won which shall be 16,47,537,019 won; 37,786,79 of the amount of tax assessed on March 31, 198; 206, the amount of tax assessed on the ground that the plaintiff filed a revised disposition on the same tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year 1996; 378,47,386,396, which shall be deemed as the amount of tax to be collected; 378,47,396,37,486, which shall be deemed as the amount of tax to be collected for the purpose of the correction disposition; 296,3719,2, excluding the amount of tax.

On the other hand, the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation in an administrative litigation, is subject to ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement, and cannot be subject to confession, so even if the parties do not dispute the existence thereof, it should be clarified ex officio if there is doubt about the existence thereof (Supreme Court Decision 98Du892 delivered on November 9, 2001). Since the defendant's disposition and a correction disposition in the first instance court are separate and separate objects of objection, it cannot be absorption and extinguished as to the correction disposition in this case, since the disposition in this case is absorption and extinguished as to the correction disposition in the first instance court, it is difficult to view that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because the disposition in this case was absorption and extinguished as it did not exist, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the court below's act alleged as unlawful as it did not violate the principle of good faith. Accordingly, even if the court below rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's above act was unlawful, such

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is justified in the conclusion that the initial return of this case and the request for correction of reduction were absorbed into the disposition for correction of increase in the amount of tax, or that there is no benefit to seek the revocation of the disposition of this case, and thus, it is unlawful. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relationship between the initial disposition of this case and the corrective disposition of increase in the amount of tax, or any error in the misapprehension of legal principles

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.

Justices Lee Han-won (Presiding Justice)