(a) In case where the taxation is revoked by a final judgment, the validity of interruption of prescription of the right to impose and collect national taxes arising from such taxation disposition;

B. The court's ex officio hearing scope in administrative litigation

A. If the imposition was made before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the right to impose and collect the national tax before the lapse of five years, the running of the extinctive prescription period shall be interrupted. The interruption of prescription period shall not expire after the revocation of the said imposition.

B. If the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription is revealed on the record, a trial and determination ex officio pursuant to Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act, even if there is no explicit defense as to the interruption of extinctive prescription by the defendant.

A. Article 27(1)(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746, Aug. 7, 1984); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686 delivered on July 8, 1986, 85Nu769 delivered on July 8, 1986, and 85Nu877 delivered on July 8, 1986, and 85Nu836 delivered on September 9, 1986

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1303 delivered on February 28, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the global income tax and defense tax reverted to year 1976 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the appeal dismissed above shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts as follows: (a) the Defendant, on April 2, 1981, notified the deceased non-party (the deceased on March 24, 1985) who was the deceased on April 2, 198, of the global income tax and the defense tax for the year 1974 through 1976; (b) the deceased, upon filing a lawsuit against the Seoul High Court on November 25, 1983, the cancellation ruling was made on the grounds that the deceased was not clearly indicated in the tax payment notice on March 27, 1984; and (c) the Supreme Court rendered the disposition of this case, stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax as of December 15 of the same year, which is identical to the above disposition of imposition on the deceased on December 17, 197 (the period before it was amended by Act No. 2705, Dec. 24, 1974).

(2) According to the date of the expiration of the extinctive prescription period as to the imposition and collection right of global income tax of this case and defense tax of this case, it is clear that the five years have passed since May 31, 1980 (the global income tax of this case and defense tax of 1974) and February 28, 1982 (the global income tax and defense tax of 1975) (the global income tax of 1975 and the global income tax of 1976). Thus, each imposition and collection right of global income tax and defense tax of 1974 and 1975 on April 2, 1981 and on the 30th of the same month prior to the completion of the extinctive prescription period, the extinctive prescription period has already been expired, and the decision of the court below was just by misapprehending the legal principles as to the imposition and collection right of global income tax of this case and the defense tax of this case, and there was no unlawful decision of the court below which ordered the revocation of the extinctive prescription period.

(3) However, with respect to global income tax and defense tax belonging to the year 1976, since there was a prior imposition disposition at the time of the original adjudication as of April 2, 1981, which was five years prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations of the imposition and collection right, the interruption of the statute of limitations is suspended, and the interruption of the statute of limitations does not lose its effect even after the cancellation of the imposition (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686, 769, 87, July 8, 1986). Accordingly, the part on global income tax and defense tax belonging to the year 1976, among the dispositions of this case, shall not be made after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, inasmuch as the grounds for the interruption of the statute of limitations are recognized in the original adjudication itself after the extension of the statute of limitations, it shall be decided ex officio under Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act without an explicit defense of the defendant as to the interruption of prescription, and therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ex officio review and ex officio.

(4) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding global income tax and defense tax belonging to the year 1976 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)