(a) Where assets are transferred two or more times in the same taxable year, the method for calculating capital gains tax;

B. In the above case, the legal nature of taxation that was not imposed by some omission of taxation

C. Whether it is possible to contest the illegality of the prior disposition finalized in the litigation procedure that contests the increase or decrease disposition

A. According to Articles 8(1), 28(1), 31(1), and 97(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3271, Dec. 31, 1980); in cases where assets are transferred at least twice in the same taxable year, such transfer income tax shall not be calculated by the transferred assets, but shall be assessed by the single tax amount for all transferred assets. According to Article 70(8) of the same Act, in order to determine whether to apply a single transfer income tax on all transferred assets, even if the tax rate is not applied as well as where the comprehensive tax rate under Article 70(1) of the same Act is not applied, it shall not be necessarily determined on the transfer income of all transferred assets. Accordingly, in cases where assets are transferred at least twice in the same taxable year, the transfer income tax shall be assessed by calculating the single transfer income tax on the transfer income of all transferred assets.

B. In the event that assets are transferred more than twice in the same taxable year, the taxation authority finds that there was a partial omission of taxation subject to capital gains tax for a taxable year after it imposed capital gains tax for the same taxable year, and imposes tax thereon, the tax authority shall calculate a single tax amount as a whole on the entire taxable subject to taxation including the taxation subject to prior taxation and the omission of taxation in accordance with the method of taxation under the Income Tax Act, and this does not mean that the tax base and tax amount should be separately determined and imposed on only the taxable subject to taxation for which the determination of the prior taxation should be deducted by the method of so-called rectification that deducts the amount of taxation subject to prior taxation, and even if the tax authority separately determined and imposed the tax base and tax amount on only the taxable subject to taxation that was omitted without the method of determination of the above increase, the validity of such tax amount should be determined in accordance with the legal principles in the case

C. In a case where there is a correction of the increase or decrease of a taxation disposition, the prior taxation disposition shall lose its independent value as a part of the correction disposition, which shall be extinguished, and only the correction disposition shall be subject to litigation, and even if the prior taxation disposition was made after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the previous trial procedure, as long as the prior taxation disposition loses independent value of existence, and thus the existence value of the previous taxation disposition is extinguished, there is no room for recognizing the non-defluence or the arbability of the previous taxation disposition, and in the litigation procedure for the correction disposition, the parties concerned shall contest whether it is unlawful as to the tax base and amount

(a)Article 8(1), Articles 28(1), 31(1), 97(2), and 70(8)(b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3271, Dec. 31, 1980);

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu539 Decided April 10, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu199 Decided December 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu911 Decided March 10, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu577 decided July 24, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 증거에 의하여 원고가 1981.5.23과 같은 해 6.22. 두 차례에 걸쳐 소외 주식회사 삼익주택에게 원심판결 별지목록1 내지 8 부동산을 양도하고, 그중 위 7,8 부동산은 1세대 1주택과 그에 부수된 토지로 비과세대상이라 하여 이를 제외한 채 위 1 내지 6 부동산의 양도분에 한하여 양도가액을 실지거래가액인 685,903,000원으로, 취득가액을 구 소득세법시행령(1980.12.31 대통령령 제10120호로 개정된 것) 제170조 제1항 단서에 의하여 재무부령이 정하는 방법에 따라 환산한 금57,158,538원으로 하여 그 자산양도차액을 계산하고 이를 기초로 한 과세표준과 양도소득세 및 방위세를 산출하여 자산양도차익예정신고를 한 다음 같은 달 30 위 세액을 자진납부한 사실과 피고가 같은해 11.17 위 신고내용대로 양도차익과 세액의 예정결정(이하 선행과세처분이라 한다)을 하였는데 그후 위 7,8 부동산이 1세대 1주택과 그에 부수되는 토지가 아니어서 비과세대상이 아니었음이 밝혀져 이 부분에 대하여 별도로 위 구 소득세법시행령 제170조 제1항 본문에 따라 지방세법상의 과세시가표준액에 의하여 양도가액을 166,773,178원으로 취득가액을 35,068,100원으로 하여 그 양도차익을 계산하고 이를 기초로 한 과세표준과 그 방위세를 산출하고서 이에 따라 1984.11.16원고에게 그 판시와 같은 부과처분(이하 후행과세처분이라 한다)을 한 사실을 확정한 다음 위 후행과세처분은 선행과세처분의 과세표준과 세액을 포함하여 전체로서의 증액된 과세표준과세액을 다시 결정하여 과세처분한 겻이 아니고 선행과세처분에서 과세대상으로 보지 아니하여 제외한 위 7,8 부동산의 양도로 인하여 생긴 양도소득에 대해서만 별도로 과세표준과 세액을 결정하여 과세한 것이므로 이를 가지고 선행과세처분의 과세표준과 세액이 포함된 이른바 증액경정처분이라고는 불 수 없고, 또 소득세법 제8조 제1항 이 소득세의 역년과세원칙을 규정하고 있지만, 양도소득세의 세율을 규정한 위 구 소득세법 제70조 제3항 에 의하면 동일과세년도에 여러 차례에 걸쳐 자산을 양도한 경우에는 모든 양도소득액을 통산한 하나의 과세표준액을 산출하여 하나의 공통세율에 의한 세액을 산출하여야 되는 것으로 되어 있지 아니할뿐더러 같은 법 제23조 제2항 제1호 에 의한 양도소득특별공제액 계산구조에 의하더라도 양도소득액을 양도자산별로 계산할 수밖에 없는 경우가 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼때 동일년도에 양도된 여러 개의 부동산 중 일부에 대해서만 별도로 과세표준과 세액을 계산하여 양도소득세를 부과한 것을 들어 위 소득세법 제8조 제1항 에 위배되어 언제나 위법하다고 단정할 수도 없다고 판시하여 피고의 이 사건 과세처분을 옳게 받아들이고 있다.

2. 그러나 이 사건 토지양도 당시에 시행되던 구 소득세법(1980.12.13 법률제3271호로 개정된 법률) 제8조 제1항 은 소득세는 1월 1일부터 12월 31일까지의 소득에 대하여 부과한다고 규정하여 소득세부과에 관한 역년과세원칙을 선언하고 있고 소득세의 소득금액산출방법을 규정한 위 같은 법 제28조 제1항 , 제31조 제1항 에 의하면, 양도소득금액을 산출하기 위한총수입급액과 이에 대응한 필요경비에 산입할 금액은 과세년도별로 합산하도록 규정하고 있으며, 양도차익예정신고시의 양도소득세과세표준과 세액산출방법을 규정한 같은 법제97조 제2항 에 의하면 당해년도의 양도차익예정신고를 2회 이상 하는 경우 2회 이후의 예정신고납부세액은 이미 신고한 양도차익과 2회 이후 신고하는 양도자산의 양도차익을 합하여 전체로서의 과세표준과 세액을 산출하고 여기에서 이미 납부한 세액을 공제하는 방법으로 계산하도록 규정하고 있으므로 이와 같은 양도소득세 산출방법에 비추어 동일과세년도에 2회 이상의 자산양도가 있는 경우에 그 양도소득세는 양도자산별로 계산하여 부과되는 것이 아니라 모든 양도자산에 대하여 하나의 세액으로 계산부과되는 것임을 알 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 위 같은 법 제70조 제8항 에 의하면 같은 법조 제3항 의 규정에 의한 산출세액이 그 양도소득과세표준에 같은 법조 제1항 의 종합소득세율을 곱하여 계산한 금액보다 적은 경우에는 제1항 에 의한 세율을 적용하여 계산한 금액을 그 세액으로 한다고 규정하고 있어서 이에 의하여 제1항 의 종합소득세율이 적용되는 경우는 물론이고 그 세율이 적용되지 않는 경우에도 그 적용여부를 가리기 위하여는 반드시 모든 양도자산의 양도차익에 대하여 단일 양도소득세액을 결정하지 않을 수 없는 바, 위의 각 규정들에 의하면 동일과세년도에 2회이상의 자산양도가 있는 경우에 언제나 모든 양도자산의 양도차익에 대하여 하나의 양도소득세액을 산출하여 과세하여야 된다고 새겨야 할 겻이다.

However, in the case where two or more assets are transferred in the same taxation year under the tax rate structure of Article 70 (3) of the former Income Tax Act, where a single tax base cannot be calculated by calculating the total amount of all capital gains, and in the calculation of the special deduction amount of capital gains pursuant to Article 23 (2) 1 of the same Act, there may arise cases where the amount of capital gains is to be calculated by transferred assets, but in such a case, one tax amount may be calculated by adding the amount of capital gains calculated by transferred assets or the amount of capital gains calculated by adding it to the amount of capital gains by transferred assets. Thus, the above provisions can not be used as a basis for calculating the amount of capital gains by transferred assets and separately

If, as above, in the case of transfer of assets at least twice the same taxable year, the transfer income tax shall be assessed on the transfer margin of all transferred assets, if at all times, the tax authority imposed the transfer income tax for the taxable year, and finds out the existence of a partial omission of taxation, and then imposes the tax accordingly, the same applies in accordance with the taxation method under the Income Tax Act even in the case where the tax authority imposed the transfer margin of all transferred assets, and finds the existence of a partial omission of taxation for the taxable year. Thus, in this case, the tax amount shall be determined as a whole by the method of a so-called increase and correction that deducts the tax amount of the preceding disposition, and the tax base and tax amount should not be imposed separately, and even if the tax authority separately determined the tax base and tax amount for only the taxable object omitted without the above increase and tax amount, it does not differ from the taxation disposition that increased the tax amount for the taxable year, and thus, the propriety of the tax amount shall be determined in accordance with the legal principle in the case where the increase and correction are made by considering

Therefore, if the prior taxation and the subsequent taxation are all imposed on capital gains accruing from the transfer of assets in 1981 by the Plaintiff, and if the subsequent taxation and the subsequent taxation are imposed on the object of taxation omitted from the prior taxation, it shall be considered that the Defendant’s method of determining the amount of tax in the corresponding year or method of taxation has increased the amount of tax. Therefore, the propriety of the amount of tax should be determined by the method of calculating the amount of tax in the corresponding year, considering the amount of tax as the method of determining the increase in the amount of tax in light of the method of taxation by which the increase in the amount of tax is determined. Meanwhile, if the increase in the amount of tax is made, the prior taxation and the subsequent taxation shall lose the value of independent existence by absorbing it as part of the revised taxation and shall be the object of litigation, and even if the prior taxation and the subsequent taxation have already become final and conclusive after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the previous taxation procedure, so long as there is no room to acknowledge the existence of the previous taxation and the subsequent taxation and the subsequent taxation without any unlawful assertion by the Plaintiff.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)