[1] Whether a disposition imposing additional dues or aggravated additional dues may be deemed to exist in a case where a tax authority did not determine additional dues or aggravated additional dues and does not demand payment after the payment deadline for national taxes expires (negative)

[2] In a case where a corrective disposition is taken to reduce the initial tax assessment, whether the imposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues should be determined based on the payment deadline of the initial tax assessment (affirmative)

[1] The additional dues and increased additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are all kinds of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears if national taxes are not paid by the due date, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment, they are naturally created under Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act, and the amount thereof shall be determined. If national taxes are not paid by the due date for payment without the due date for payment by the due date for payment by the due date for payment by the due date, it is possible to demand the payment by the due date for payment. Thus, if the due date for payment is unreasonable or defective in the due date for payment by the due date, it shall be possible to object to the due date for the due date by the due date for the payment by the due date, but no additional dues and increased additional dues shall be imposed unless there is a demand for the payment after the due date for payment by the due date for payment by the due date.

[2] In a case where a tax authority issued a revised tax disposition subsequent to a tax disposition, the first tax disposition is different from the loss of independent existence value by absorbing as a part of the subsequent revised tax disposition, and in a case where a revised tax disposition was made, the first tax disposition shall be determined based on the payment period, etc. of the first tax disposition, since it does not have the effect of establishing specific tax liabilities as to the balance, and the first tax disposition shall continue to exist within the scope where the amount of the tax disposition was reduced, since the first tax disposition

[1] Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act / [2] Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1168 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1288), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1627 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1767) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu532 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1497), Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong198, 353), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6328 delivered on July 30, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2726), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17981 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong196Ha, 2726)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu 13149 delivered on February 9, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The additional dues and aggravated additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are a kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears if national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date, it naturally becomes final and conclusive by the above provision of the Act, and if it is possible to demand the payment of national taxes by the due date without the due date, to commence the collection procedure. Thus, if the payment demand is unreasonable or defect occurs in the procedure, it is possible to demand the tax authorities to file a suit seeking revocation, but the tax authorities did not do any act to determine additional dues or aggravated additional dues. However, if a national tax payment notice fails to pay by the due date, it is merely notified that additional dues or aggravated additional dues should be collected by the due date for one month after the due date, and if there is no demand for the payment after the due date, it is unlawful to impose additional dues or aggravated additional dues for the first time to cancel the tax imposition within 90Nu680, May 8, 190.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below determined that the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the collection procedure by demanding the payment of the additional dues and aggravated additional dues or any disposition to confirm them is unlawful on the premise that the existence of the disposition imposing the additional dues and aggravated additional dues has not been established. The plaintiffs' assertion that the first disposition of this case was invalidated due to the correction disposition of the previous administrative litigation, which was brought by the plaintiffs, and it was absorption into the above correction disposition, and thus, the plaintiffs do not have an obligation to pay additional dues and increased additional dues for the period prior to the above correction disposition. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Further, the Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8244 Decided July 26, 191, which affected the legal principles as to the above correction disposition, and the argument in the grounds of appeal based on this error is merely an understanding of the purport

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)