[1] In a case where a correction disposition is made after the exclusion period, whether the taxpayer can re-argue whether the portion which was determined by the original disposition is unlawful (negative)

[2] In a case where co-inheritors exist, the standard for determining whether the inheritance tax correction disposition constitutes the increase or decrease or reduction or correction disposition

[1] Since a correction disposition is a whole including the original disposition and the increased tax base and tax amount, the original disposition lose independent existence value by absorbing the correction disposition, and only the correction disposition becomes the object of litigation, and the taxpayer may contest whether it is illegal as to the tax base and tax amount finalized in the original disposition, not only the increased portion, but also the tax base and tax amount finalized in the original disposition. However, if the correction disposition is made after the exclusion period, the increase becomes null and void, and the initial disposition that was made before the exclusion period is valid. Thus, the taxpayer cannot contest again as to the portion already finalized in the original disposition solely on the ground that such a correction disposition was made.

[2] In a case where the tax authority written the total amount of tax payable in a tax payment notice and the grounds for calculation thereof to co-inheritors in imposing an inheritance tax on the co-inheritors and served them on the co-inheritors along with the ratio of possession of each co-inheritors’ inherited property and the detailed statement of notified tax amount by joint-inheritors, etc., specifying the amount of tax to be paid by the co-inheritors, is effective as a notice of tax assessment specifying the specific amount of tax to be paid by the co-inheritors. The total amount of tax in a tax payment notice is effective as a part of the collection procedure as to the total amount of tax jointly and severally liable to pay by the co-inheritors as part of the collection procedure. Thus, in a case where the co-inheritors has a co-inheritors, whether the increased amount of inheritance tax is a corrected disposition or a reduced amount of tax shall not be determined based on the total amount of individual

[1] Article 26-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 25 (see current Article 76 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) / [2] Article 9 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), Article 18 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) (see current Article 3 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 25-2 (see current Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of May 39, 192)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu539 delivered on April 10, 198 (Gong1984, 841 delivered on December 11, 198), 84Nu225 delivered on December 11, 198, 86Nu199 delivered on December 23, 198 (Gong1987, 1989), 85Nu599 delivered on December 22, 197 (Gong198, 369, 309, 397, 196Nu2979, 1979, 2997, 2997, 2997, 2997, 297, 290Nu26072 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong199, 295).

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu18604 delivered on September 17, 2002

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

A. As to the subject matter of the dispute of this case

Inasmuch as a correction disposition is re-determined as a whole including the original disposition and the increased tax base and tax amount, the original disposition loses independent existence value by absorbing the increase disposition and can bring about dispute as to whether it is unlawful as to the tax base and tax amount finalized in the original disposition as well as the increased portion (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599, Dec. 22, 1987). However, where a correction disposition takes place after the lapse of the exclusion period, only the increased portion shall be invalidated, and the initial disposition that was made before the exclusion period shall be valid. Thus, a taxpayer shall not be re-appellantd as to the portion finalized in the original disposition solely on the ground that such a correction disposition was made (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15189, May 23, 1995).

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the 6th disposition of this case, which is an increase or decrease, was invalid after the lapse of the exclusion period, and that there was a defect in the procedure of duty payment as to the original final disposition, or that there was an error in the method of assessment of inherited property or an erroneous payment for unfaithful payment, etc., without any further review, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of litigation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and further, as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the defect in the original disposition cannot be deemed a ground

B. Regarding the scope of revocation of the disposition

In imposing and assessing inheritance tax, etc. on co-inheritors when the tax authority entered the total amount of tax payable in the notice of tax payment and the grounds for calculation thereof, etc., and served on co-inheritors along with the ratio of possession of each co-inheritors’ inherited property and the detailed statement of notified tax amount by joint-inheritors, etc., the classification and specification of the amount of tax to be paid by each co-inheritors becomes effective as a notice of tax imposition specifying the amount of tax to be paid by the co-inheritors. The entry of the total amount of tax in the notice of tax payment has the effect as a notice of tax collection claiming performance as part of the collection procedure regarding the total amount of tax jointly and severally liable to pay by co-inheritors (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu68, Sept. 24, 1996). In such a case where a co-inheritors exists, whether the amended disposition of inheritance tax is an increased or decreased disposition or a revised disposition of tax amount is not determined based on the total amount of inheritance tax as to all co-inheritors’s individual tax amount notified to pay by each co-inheritors (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2911,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and held that the total amount of inheritance tax reduced compared to the 5th disposition in the case of the 6th disposition of this case, but since the unique amount of inheritance tax to be borne by the plaintiffs increased, this constitutes an increase in the amount of inheritance tax to be borne by the plaintiffs. Since the 6th disposition was made after the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition of inheritance tax of this case, it is null and void since it was made after June 11, 1997, and thus, the increased amount of tax

However, according to the records, since the five dispositions of this case were taken on December 7, 1998, and the total amount of tax reduced compared to the four dispositions of May 1, 1997, the initial disposition of this case, but the individual amount of tax assessed by the plaintiffs increased, the five dispositions also constitute an increase or decrease in the initial disposition as well as the six dispositions. In addition, since the five dispositions were made after the expiration of the exclusion period of inheritance tax of this case, the four dispositions of this case, which were taken before the exclusion period of this case against the plaintiffs, were the initial disposition of this case concerning the six dispositions of this case, and the scope that should be revoked as the six dispositions become null and void, shall be the amount of tax assessed by the fourth dispositions of the six dispositions and the amount exceeding the additional charges incurred thereby.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below ordering the revocation of the fifth of the sixth of the sixth of the sixth of the disposition against the plaintiffs, on the premise that the fifth of the fifth of the disposition is a reduction or correction of the fourth of the disposition, is valid, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the increase or correction, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the defendant's appeal

The defendant did not file an appellate brief within the prescribed period (the defendant's appellate brief was filed on December 11, 2002), and there is no indication in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal filed by the defendant.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)