[1] Whether an amount for which an application for payment by annual installments was filed after its filing deadline due to a difference in the evaluation of inherited property under the former Inheritance Tax Act becomes subject to the imposition of additional tax (affirmative)

[2] Requirements for a taxpayer to file a lawsuit claiming the revocation of a tax disposition without going through a prior trial procedure

[3] The case holding that a taxpayer may file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition without going through the procedure of the previous trial

[1] The unpaid tax amount subject to an additional payment for inheritance tax refers to the tax amount which has not been paid within the due date or has been paid short of the due date based on the due date for filing the return. Therefore, even if the amount of tax was returned as inherited property but was not paid due to a difference in assessment, it is not included in the amount to be paid by annual payment, so long as it was not actually applied for an annual payment by the due date, it is not included in the amount to be deducted from the due date for filing the return, and even if the taxpayer can file an application for annual payment by the due date for payment by the due date for filing the inheritance tax return after receiving the tax base and tax amount notice, the obligation to pay the unpaid additional

[2] Under the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the provisions of Articles 18(2) and (3), and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act do not apply to a tax suit. However, if two or more administrative dispositions are taken in the course of a phased and developmental process, and are related to each other, in the course of a tax suit, the tax authority changed the taxation disposition, which is the object of the tax suit, and the grounds for illegality are common. In the event that several persons are subject to identical obligations under the same administrative disposition or are subject to identical duties by the same administrative disposition, one of the taxpayers and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity for the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, and the taxpayer can file an administrative suit claiming the revocation of the taxation disposition without going through the previous trial procedure.

[3] The case holding that, in case where a taxpayer filed a lawsuit to revoke the previous disposition while the tax authority had filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition and that the taxpayer sought revocation of the final disposition as a result of the revocation of the final disposition, in light of the circumstances that the grounds for illegality alleged by the taxpayer are common in the previous disposition and the taxpayer had already been given an opportunity to make a new determination on the basic facts and legal issues through legitimate procedure of the previous trial for the reason of illegality such as the final disposition, and that the taxpayer had already been given an opportunity to make a new determination of the basic facts and legal issues with respect to the previous disposition, it is harsh to have the taxpayer go through the previous trial procedure,

[1] Articles 20-2(2) (see current Article 70 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), 26(2) (see current Article 78(2)), and 28 (see current Article 71 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); / [2] Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 18(2) and (3), and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 18(2) and (3), and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16308 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 65) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1892 delivered on August 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2042) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2200 delivered on April 8, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 1477), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17998 delivered on June 9, 198 (Gong198Ha, 1907) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu796 delivered on November 10, 198 (Gong190, 388) / [190] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2939499 delivered on May 29, 199 (Gong194929, 194No293949794 delivered on May 294, 19894).

Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Attorney Kim Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Hongsung Tax Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu1106 delivered on December 11, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the employed evidence, and found that the non-party 1 and the plaintiff 4 purchased 1/3 of each part of the land of this case and held the title trust to the non-party 2, the deceased, the deceased. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just, and there is no violation of the principle of pleading or the rules of evidence, or there is no error of law that misleads the facts. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is rejected.

B. On the second ground for appeal

The unpaid tax amount subject to an additional payment for inheritance tax refers to the tax amount which has not been paid within the due date or has been paid short of the due date based on the due date for filing the return. Thus, the amount of an application for annual payment deducted from the amount to be voluntarily paid in calculating the additional payment for inheritance tax refers only to the amount of an application for annual payment by the due date for filing the inheritance tax return. Therefore, even though the amount of tax was reported as inherited property but did not apply for annual payment by the due date for filing the return, it does not include the amount to be deducted from the amount to be voluntarily paid tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16308, Nov. 27, 1998). Therefore, even if a taxpayer can file an application for annual payment by the due date after receiving the tax base and tax amount and the pertinent tax

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the additional payment for the inheritance tax. Therefore, this ground of appeal is not accepted.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the defendant initially issued an inheritance tax amount of KRW 957,100,097 to the plaintiffs on February 6, 1995, but revised the amount of KRW 938,079,720 by partially reducing the inheritance tax on April 6, 1995. On July 30, 1995, the defendant revoked the total amount on the ground that the notice was not served to each heir but was served only on one heir on July 30, 1995, and again imposed an additional tax of KRW 954,372,950 on a separate basis according to the plaintiffs' statutory share of inheritance, and again imposed an additional tax of KRW 938,079,720 on August 31, 195, and deducted the voluntary amount of tax, but completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of consultation with the plaintiffs on June 30, 197, and then revoked the first disposition on the ground that the final disposition was unlawful.

In addition, the provisions of Articles 18(2) and (3) and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not apply to tax litigation pursuant to the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the provisions of Articles 18(2) and (3), and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not apply to taxation litigation. However, if two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were conducted in a phased and advanced manner, and are related to each other, the tax authorities have modified the taxation disposition subject to such disposition during the tax litigation and the grounds for illegality are common. In the event that several persons are subject to the same obligation under the same administrative disposition, or when one of them is subject to the same administrative disposition, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal provided the National Tax Tribunal with an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, and the taxpayer may file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition without undergoing the previous trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu796, Nov. 10, 198; 9Nu24839, May 2498, 1998).

However, in this case, considering various circumstances such as the cancellation of the previous disposition during the proceeding of this case seeking the cancellation of the previous disposition and the change of the plaintiffs' claim for the cancellation of the final disposition of this case, the ground for illegality alleged by the plaintiffs in the initial disposition of this case and the final disposition of this case are common, and the plaintiffs had already been given the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal through lawful procedures for the cancellation of the final disposition of this case with the grounds for illegality as to the initial disposition of this case, and that there was an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, it would be harsh to make the plaintiffs go through the previous procedure. Thus, even if the plaintiffs did not go through the previous trial on the final disposition of this case, they can seek the cancellation even if they did not go through the previous trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1892, Aug. 28, 1990; 96Nu200, Apr. 8, 1997; 96Nu198, etc.).

B. On the second ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below on the title trust of the land of this case is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above. Therefore, this ground of appeal is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)