(a) Cancellation of a tax payment notice and the effect of interrupting prescription resulting from such notice;

B. Whether the right to collect national taxes under Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) includes the right to impose national taxes

A. The interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds that the fact that the extinctive prescription is non-exercise of the right, which serves as the basis for extinctive prescription, has arisen. Therefore, the effect of interrupting 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 payment notice does not disappear even if

B. The current Framework Act on National Taxes has a exclusion period for the right to impose under Article 26-2(1) and Article 27 provides that the exclusion period for the right to impose the national tax shall apply from the beginning of the date on which the national tax can be levied after January 1, 1985, with respect to the exclusion period for the right to impose the national tax, and the exclusion period for the right to impose the national tax shall be clearly divided into the exclusion period for the right to impose the national tax and the statute of limitations for the right to impose the national tax shall apply. However, in interpreting Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) without any express provision for the exclusion period for the right to impose the national tax under the same paragraph, the right to impose and collect the national tax ultimately includes both the right to impose and the right to collect the national tax, which are a series of rights to obtain satisfaction for the realization of the national tax collection, and

A. Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686 delivered on July 8, 1986, 86Nu15 delivered on February 24, 1987, and 85Nu9 delivered on March 10, 1987. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu572 delivered on December 26, 1984, and 84Nu619 delivered on April 9, 1985

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Attorneys Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu515 delivered on February 24, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

As the interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds that the fact that it is not the non-exercise of the right that serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription that has already occurred by the exercise of the right by the person who has the right to collect the national tax by the notice of tax payment does not disappear even if the relevant disposition of imposition (tax payment notice) has been revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu959, Mar. 10, 1987; 86Nu15, Feb. 24, 1987).

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below is just in holding that the inheritance tax claim due to the death of the non-party whose father is the plaintiffs' father on February 28, 1979 shall not lose the effect of the interruption of prescription caused by the exercise of rights by the person who has the right to collect the national tax by the notice even if the defendant voluntarily cancelled the tax payment notice on July 2, 1983 and August 27, 1983 due to the non-entry on the basis of calculating the amount of tax, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Article 26-2 (1) of the current Framework Act on National Taxes provides that national taxes shall not be imposed after five or two years from the date on which the national taxes may be imposed pursuant to each item of taxation expires, and Article 27 of the same Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription expires if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised for five years from the date on which it can be exercised, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription expires for the right to impose national taxes shall be applied from the beginning of the date on which the national taxes may be imposed after January 1, 1985. Thus, the period of extinctive prescription is clearly divided into the period of extinctive prescription for the right to impose national taxes, but the period of extinctive prescription is clearly divided into legislation that only the period of the right to impose national taxes shall be applicable. However, in interpreting Article 27 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746, Aug. 7, 1984) which was enforced at the time of the disposition of this case without express provisions concerning the period of exclusion of national taxes.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below, it is reasonable that the court below rejected the claim that the exclusion period of five years should apply to the imposition right, separate from the extinctive prescription as to the imposition of this case, in accordance with such opinion, and there is no violation of law such as confusion between the exclusion period of the national tax imposition right and the extinctive prescription

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)