In case where a taxation is revoked by a final judgment, the validity of interruption of prescription of the right to impose and collect national taxes arising therefrom.

As the interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds of the fact that the non-exercise of the right, which serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, is an act that preventss the progress of extinctive prescription, the interruption of extinctive prescription that has already occurred by the exercise of rights by the person who has the right to collect national tax by a tax

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686 delivered on July 8, 1986, 85Nu836 delivered on September 9, 1986, 86Nu346 delivered on January 20, 1987

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1289 delivered on November 1, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on the show evidence, found that the plaintiff, as a real estate sales businessman, failed to report the business income from the transfer of 86.5 and 42 parcels of land in Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) before 1974 to 1978, and the defendant applied the Income Tax Act at the time of such disposition to the plaintiff on September 19, 1979, but did not make any special deduction in calculating the tax base amount of the initial tax imposition as of July 16, 1980, on the ground that the special deduction was erroneous, again made in relation to the tax base amount of the initial tax imposition as of July 16, 1980, the above global income tax and defense increase government and defect in the disposition as stated in its reasoning, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the above disposition with the Seoul High Court on the ground that the plaintiff did not state the tax base amount, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the defendant did not have any effect of the final and conclusive judgment as of June 6, 1984.

However, as the interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds of the fact that the non-exercise of the right, which serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, is an act that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription, the effect of extinctive prescription that has already occurred by the exercise of the right by the person who has the right to collect national taxes by a tax payment notice, is not subject to cancellation

Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interruption of extinctive prescription based on a duty payment notice, and there are reasonable grounds for appeal.

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

Justices Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Justice)