(a) Income tax and defense detail and date of settlement of extinctive prescription of collection rights;

(b) Where a disposition of imposition by a duty payment notice is revoked as illegal, whether the interruption of prescription is effective on such notice;

C. Whether an administrative agency in a lawsuit demanding an administrative disposition denies the plaintiff's assertion and asserts the legitimacy of the disposition constitutes a judicial claim, which is a cause for interrupting prescription

A. In the case of the right to impose tax, the starting date of the prescription shall be calculated from the date on which the Government can impose and collect the tax without the progress due to the existence of an abstract taxation claim in the nature of the taxation claim, and in the case of the same as income tax and defense tax, the period from the day after the end of the period for the final return on tax base as long as the period for the final return on tax base can exercise the right

B. In a case where the original disposition of taxation is revoked on the ground of an omission in the calculation basis of the tax amount and a new disposition of taxation is taken accordingly, it cannot be deemed that only a new disposition of taxation, which has already been specifically determined on the basis of the new disposition of taxation, is a new disposition of taxation, and furthermore, an administrative disposition revoked by a final and conclusive judgment shall lose its validity retroactively. As such, the administrative disposition that was revoked by a final and conclusive judgment shall lose its validity retroactively, it is difficult to deem that the disposition of taxation conducted by the said notice of tax payment itself

C. In a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that an administrative disposition was unlawful, the administrative agency’s denial of the Plaintiff’s assertion by its response and the assertion that the administrative disposition is lawful does not constitute a judicial claim, which is a cause for interrupting prescription, since it does not exercise the right holder’s own

Article 168 of the Civil Act, Articles 27 and 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 7485, Jan. 22, 1985)

Tropical typum

Head of Western Tax Office

The imposition of global income tax of 173,670 won and defense tax of 19,650 won and tax of 19,650 won belonging to the year 1976, global income tax of 2,257,860 won and defense tax of 258,490 won, global income tax of 1977, global income tax of 781,000 won and defense tax of 85,200 won belonging to the year 197 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. According to the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3-1, 2, and 3-2, respectively, and the whole purport of pleadings, the defendant's disposition of imposition of global income tax and defense tax against the plaintiff on July 18, 1980 as stated in the separate statement No. 1-A, (b), and (c) shall be revoked on February 29, 1984 on the ground that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition of global income tax and defense tax on the part belonging to 1975 through 197, and the appeal is filed against the plaintiff on the ground that the court did not state the grounds for calculation of tax amount, but the defendant's appeal was dismissed on June 12, 1984, which became final as it becomes final and conclusive as it is, and the defendant's disposition of imposition of global income tax less than 10.18

2. However, according to Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise it, the extinctive prescription shall be completed. Here, the right to collect national taxes refers to a series of rights to obtain satisfaction for the realization of the collection of national taxes. Thus, as long as the right to impose and collect taxes are to be included in both the right to impose and collect taxes, the above two shall be the subject of extinctive prescription. Meanwhile, in the case of the right to impose taxes, the starting date of the prescription shall be calculated from the date on which the Government can impose and collect taxes without the progress of the establishment of an abstract tax claim due to the nature of the tax claim, and in the case of the income tax and the defense tax, it shall be calculated from the day following the end of the period for filing the final return on tax base as long as the period for filing the tax base can be exercised as the government can exercise its right

However, according to Article 100 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 2705, Dec. 24, 1974) which was enforced at the time of 1975, a person with global income, etc. in the current year shall file a final return on the tax base between February 1 and February 2 of the year following the current year, and thereafter the reporting period was amended by Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976; the reporting period of the defense tax was changed from April 1 to April 30 of the following year; and according to Article 5 (1) of the Defense Tax Act, since the reporting period of the defense tax is the same as that of the principal tax, the date the statute of limitations period for the global income tax and the right to impose the defense tax for the portion belonging to the year 1975 through 1977 is the same as the defense item 2-B of the attached Table 1974; therefore, it is clear that the Defendant's special disposition of the Plaintiff's global income tax has already completed after the completion period.

3. In regard to this, the defendant, on the ground that the original disposition of this case was not a new disposition for confirmation of tax liability, but a new procedure for collecting tax claims already determined by supplementing the basis for calculating the amount of tax omitted in the original notice at the time of disposition, as it was re-written by the court's final judgment revoking the original disposition on the ground that the original disposition did not state the basis for calculating the amount of tax in the tax payment notice, and thus, the right to impose tax liability is not likely to be subject to prescription, and even if not, it shall be deemed that the period of prescription has been suspended once by the initial tax payment notice as of July 18, 1980, which was filed by the plaintiff against the appeal suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in response to the initial disposition of tax payment, and it shall be deemed that the period of prescription has expired from the next day after the Supreme Court's decision was rendered on June 12, 1984, and the right to impose tax of this case has expired by the expiration of prescription

However, according to the facts established above, the defendant's assertion that the initial disposition of tax payment was revoked on the ground of omission in calculating the amount of tax and that the new disposition of tax payment was subject to the new disposition of tax payment, and therefore, it is clear that the new disposition of the global income tax and defense tax as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article was taken only once the new disposition of tax payment became final and conclusive on the basis of the new disposition of tax payment, and further, the administrative disposition of tax payment revoked by a final and conclusive judgment will lose its effect retroactively, and as such, it is difficult to say that the disposition of tax payment conducted by the duty payment notice itself is illegal and has the effect of interrupting prescription. Furthermore, in a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that any administrative disposition was unlawful, it cannot be deemed that the defendant denied the plaintiff's assertion as the plaintiff's answer and claiming legitimate administrative disposition does not act on the part of the right holder's own, and thus, it does not constitute a judicial claim which is a cause for interrupting prescription.

4. Thus, since the disposition of imposition of global income tax and defense tax against the plaintiff of this case against the plaintiff is illegal, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)