In cases where a taxation disposition that suspended prescription was revoked, whether the interruption of prescription is effective

According to Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a duty payment notice is served as one of the grounds for suspending extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes. As such, the revocation of a tax disposition that suspended extinctive prescription does not affect the effect of interruption

Article 28 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff

Head of Seogju Tax Office

The plaintiff's principal claim shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's preliminary claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Main Claim

On August 23, 1983, the Defendant confirmed that imposition of global income tax of KRW 21,175,104 and defense tax of KRW 5,513,497 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The imposition of the above global income tax and defense tax against the plaintiff on the same day shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The fact that the defendant against the plaintiff on August 23, 1983 that the defendant made a disposition to state the purport of the claim for taxation for the year 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "tax disposition in this case") is not a dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff's attorney, as the main cause of claim, has the right to collect national taxes on the income tax belonging to the plaintiff's 1977 after April 30, 1978, which was the day following the expiration of the five-year extinctive prescription period, counting from May 1, 198 of the same year, which was the day following the expiration of the deadline for filing the tax base. As seen above, the defendant issued the tax disposition against the plaintiff on August 23, 1983, which is apparent in fact after the expiration of the above prescription period, and thus, it is invalid. However, according to the Eul's evidence No. 9 (Certification of Tax Payment) without dispute, the plaintiff's plaintiff's claim is acknowledged to have been made on August 24, 1983, on the ground that the plaintiff paid the defendant the total amount of the tax stated in the claim for taxation 26,68,601 won, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or the plaintiff's independent interest in the lawsuit is not justified.

The plaintiff's legal representative asserts that this tax disposition should be cancelled since the defendant's initial right to collect the national tax was extinguished by prescription as seen above. Thus, Article 27 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall expire unless the State exercises its right to collect national tax with respect to the right to collect the national tax. Article 28 (1) of the same Act provides that one of the causes interrupting prescription and Article 28 (2) of the same Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall expire again from the day following the expiration of the original payment period of 1977 (Article 8, 10, 107, 116, and 17, 197, 197, etc.). Thus, the defendant did not exercise its right to tax disposition with respect to the same taxation disposition after the lapse of the original payment period of 3 years after the expiration of the original payment period of 1977 (No. 16, Dec. 22, 1976).

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful and without merit, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)