(a) Where a decision is made on the tax base and amount of tax, the effects of the original disposition and the object of litigation;

(b) The effects of the original disposition and the judgment criteria on the legitimacy of the previous trial procedure where a corrective disposition is made to reduce the tax base and amount;

(c) the requirements of the corporate tax estimate and the court's measures where the requirements are not demonstrated;

(d) A case that the appellate court reversed and dismissed; and

A. In a case where a tax authority made an increase or decrease in tax base and amount of tax subsequent to the issuance of a tax disposition, and thereafter made an increase or decrease in tax base and amount of tax, the tax amount first determined in the tax disposition shall not be limited to the increased or decreased tax base and amount of tax, but shall be re-determined as a whole including the first tax base and amount of tax, etc., including the initial tax base and amount of tax. Thus, even in a case where the first tax disposition loses independent value by absorbing as a part of the subsequent tax disposition, and only the increase or decrease disposition is subject to litigation, and the first tax disposition was made after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the previous trial procedure

B. Where a tax authority issued a tax disposition to reduce the tax base and the amount of tax subsequent to a tax disposition, the tax disposition to reduce the amount of tax shall continue to exist within the scope of the reduction of the tax base and the amount of tax initially determined, and in such a case, the legality of the pre-assessment procedure shall be determined on the basis of the initial disposition.

C. For corporate tax, etc., the estimated tax based on the income standard rate is allowed when there is no taxpayer’s account books and documentary evidence, etc., which serve as the basis for the determination of the tax base and amount of tax, or when it is impossible to impose tax by the basis of taxation because the important part is incomplete or false. In a case where the legality of the estimated tax is disputed, the court cannot cancel the estimated tax imposed by the tax authority on the ground that it was illegal, and it does not impose a duty to calculate the legitimate tax amount when it complie

D. The case where the court of final appeal reversed and dismissed the appeal.

(a)Article 19, Section 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Section 32, Section 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, Section 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu539 delivered on April 10, 1984, 84Nu225 delivered on December 11, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu199 delivered on December 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu628 delivered on December 22, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu632 delivered on November 26, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu724 delivered on February 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu740 delivered on April 14, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu62 delivered on July 9, 1985, 84Nu216 delivered on March 25, 1986

The Ansan Industry Corporation

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu719 delivered on June 26, 1985

Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s disposition imposing global income tax amounting to KRW 19,324,956, and the defense tax amounting to KRW 3,513,628 is reversed, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition is dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The total costs of litigation in the dismissed part shall be borne by the plaintiff and the costs of appeal in the dismissed part.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

1. First, we examine the ground of appeal No. 2.

(1) In a case where the tax authority found an error or omission in the tax base and tax amount after a tax disposition was issued and subsequently corrected them, the tax base and tax amount initially determined in the tax disposition shall not be determined as they are, and the increased tax base and tax amount, including the first tax base and tax amount, shall not be determined as they were, and the first tax base and tax amount shall be determined again. Thus, the first tax disposition shall be extinguished by losing its independent value as it was incorporated into a part of the subsequent reorganization disposition, and only the first tax disposition shall be a litigation case. Even in a case where the first tax disposition was made after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the previous trial procedure, the party concerned may dispute the illegality of the first tax base and tax amount determined by the previous tax disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu199, Dec. 23, 1986; 84Nu225, Dec. 11, 1984).

According to the records, it is evident that the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax and defense tax belonging to the plaintiff corporation of March 27, 1982 from the business year of 1977 to the business year of 1979, and the tax imposition of Gap of May 7, 1982 and defense tax belonging to the business year of 1978 and the tax imposition of Gap of May 7, 1979 and defense tax have been increased by the tax imposition of September 27, 1982. Thus, the court below decided that the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning corporate tax and defense tax belonging to each business year of the above business year of this case and the tax imposition of Gap of the above year and defense tax belonging to the above year of 1972 were legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this point.

(2) However, in a case where the tax authority made a decision to revise a tax base and amount of tax after a taxation was made, the above disposition to revise the tax base and amount of tax was only to cancel part of the tax base and amount of tax initially determined on the tax base. Thus, the first disposition continues to exist within the scope of the reduced tax base and only this disposition should be determined based on the initial disposition. In this case, whether the procedure for the previous trial is legitimate shall be determined on the basis of the initial disposition. According to the records, the defendant notified the plaintiff on May 7, 1982 about 19,324,956 won of Class A earned income tax for the year 19,324,956 won, defense tax for the first time, 3,513,682 won, which was imposed on the plaintiff on September 27, 199 of the same year, and subsequently corrected the above Class A earned income tax for the year 12,9,116 won, defense tax for 2,400,590 won (see evidence No. 6-4).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tax administrative litigation procedure, which held that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was lawful, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thus, affected the conclusion of the judgment, which points out this issue.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal.

The estimated tax based on the standard rate of income in corporate tax, etc. is allowed when there is no taxpayer's account books and documentary evidence, etc., which serve as the basis for the determination of tax base and tax amount, or when it cannot be taxed by the basis of taxation because of its lack of material parts or falsity. In a case where the legitimacy of such estimated tax is disputed, the court does not impose a duty on the taxpayer to calculate the legitimate tax amount when it is conducted on the spot investigation by the tax authorities for the reason that the estimated tax imposed by the tax authorities was illegal unless the requirement is proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu216, Mar. 25, 1986; 85Nu62, Jul. 9,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the court below's measures are just in light of the records, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor of incomplete deliberation, or of misapprehension of the legal principles, since the court below rejected all the evidence submitted by the defendant, which meet the defendant's argument that the defendant's submission of each of the above dispositions is unlawful, since the court below revoked the whole of the above dispositions of taxation, although the plaintiff corporation kept a book, etc. of the business year 197, 1978, and 1979, and the defendant did not conduct a field investigation, and the defendant estimated the income amount of the above three business years and imposed corporate tax and defense tax belonging to each of the above three business years on the plaintiff on the basis of this fact

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the disposition of imposition of Class A earned income tax for the plaintiff in 1980 and 19,324,956 and 3,513,682 against the plaintiff is reversed and this part is deemed sufficient to be judged by the party members. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the above disposition is dismissed, but the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)