To revoke a taxation disposition on the grounds that the basis for calculating the amount of tax was omitted, and to deny a determination of additional national tax refund;

If a disposition of revocation becomes retroactively null and void on the grounds that a taxpayer omitted the basis for calculating the amount of tax in a tax payment notice after paying the amount of tax in accordance with the previous disposition of revocation, it constitutes a ground for calculating and determining additional dues for refund where a disposition of revocation is revoked after payment under Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. If the head of a tax office, as a result of the determination of additional dues for refund, makes a decision of revocation of refund without immediately confirming the taxpayer’s right to claim additional dues for refund, it is deemed that the head of a tax office, without making a decision of additional dues for refund, issued a disposition of rejection by omission in the decision of additional dues for refund. Accordingly, the failure of the head of a tax office to make a decision of appropriation for refund

Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu662 delivered on January 16, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's imposition of additional charges on the plaintiff 2 for the 1981.7.6 of the National Tax Refunds Act 132,30,094 and the defense tax amount 28,329,462 of the above tax base return for the 20th five years and 206th five separate tax base return for the same imposition of additional charges on the 197th five separate tax base return, 26th additional charges for the 2th five separate tax base return, 36th additional charges for the same imposition of additional charges on the 2th five separate tax base return, 46th additional charges for the 197th five separate tax base return, 36th additional charges for the same imposition of additional charges for the 2nd five separate tax base return, 40th additional charges for the 2nd five separate tax base return, 196th additional charges for the 2nd five separate tax base return, 36th additional charges for the tax base return.

However, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the omission of the basis for calculating the amount of tax in the tax notice is merely a defect in the collection procedure, and even if the decision of revocation for the omission is made on the ground of the omission, the argument that this does not fall under the time of the decision of revocation for the imposition after the payment under Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is just a single opinion of the defendant litigation performer, and it is not reasonable to argue that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles

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.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)