[1] Whether a decision of correction to reduce the tax base and amount of tax is subject to an independent appeal litigation (negative)

[2] The case holding that a decision of reduction by a tax authority based on a decision of national tax adjudication cannot be subject to appeal litigation on the ground that there are no special grounds to recognize a separate means of litigation

[1] In a case where a correction disposition that reduces the tax base and amount of tax is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, but the substance of the disposition is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, but the change of the original imposition disposition, and thereby brings about the favorable effect to taxpayers as to the partial revocation of the amount of tax, and thus, the determination of the amount of tax is not yet revoked, and the remaining part of the disposition that remains illegal is not revoked, the subject of an appeal litigation is not the remainder of the original disposition that is not revoked by the decision of correction, and the determination of the correction is not the subject of an appeal

[2] The case holding that a decision of correction made by the tax authority in accordance with the decision of adjudication ordering a correction of re-audit of the National Tax Tribunal in relation to the imposition of inheritance tax shall not be subject to appeal litigation because there are no special grounds for recognizing a separate means of

[1] Articles 18 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 353), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu989 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 110), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu351 delivered on August 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3139), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8904 delivered on November 15, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 114) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6328 delivered on July 30, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2726), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10681 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong196Ha, 2726)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu6768 delivered on December 26, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 was not subject to the original disposition on April 1, 1995 when the non-party 1 died on October 25, 1993, and that the inheritance tax was imposed and collected at KRW 4,335,271,190 on the plaintiffs who are their successors, and that the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for review on July 12, 1995, the National Tax Tribunal did not include the deposit amount withdrawn within two years before the commencement date of inheritance in the inheritance tax amount of KRW 2,365,064,54,50 of the deceased's inheritance tax amount of KRW 9,280 of the inheritance tax amount of the deceased's inheritance tax amount of KRW 9,50 of the inheritance tax amount of the deceased's inheritance tax amount of KRW 9,50,280 of the inheritance tax amount of the deceased's inheritance tax amount of KRW 96,50 of the inheritance tax amount of the deceased's and the correction decision of this case.

2. In a case where a correction disposition that reduces the tax base and amount of tax is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, but the substance of which is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, and thereby brings a favorable effect to taxpayers as to partial revocation of tax amount, and thus, the determination of a correction is not yet revoked, and the part of which remains illegal is not yet revoked, the subject of an appeal litigation is the remaining part of the original imposition disposition, and the decision of correction is not the subject of an appeal litigation, and it is not the subject of an appeal litigation. In this case, whether the decision of correction was lawful procedure should also be determined on the basis of the initial disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu599, Dec. 22, 1987; 93Nu989, Nov. 9, 1993; 95Nu351, Aug. 11, 1995).

This legal doctrine also applies to the case of a decision of reduction made by the National Tax Tribunal in accordance with the correction guidelines without specifying a legitimate amount of tax in the course of partially accepting the request for a judgment, and allowing the relevant administrative agency to determine a specific tax base and amount of tax (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu10768, Oct. 24, 1997; 95Nu6328, Jul. 30, 1996).

According to the records, the defendant, according to the purport of the above decision of the National Tax Tribunal, after re-audit of the plaintiffs' inheritance debts, debts borne within two years before the commencing date of the inheritance, and the amount of the real estate disposed of within two years before the commencing date of the inheritance, and the decision of correction of the reduction in this case is not erroneous in the determination of correction in the above decision of correction in this case, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs did not recognize the grounds for objection against the decision of correction in this case as inheritance debts in the lawsuit of this case, and the reasons for objection against the decision of correction in the lawsuit of this case are clear among the value of the real estate disposed within two years after the commencing date of the inheritance, and there is an amount included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes unfairly, and ③ there is a property under title trust only among the real estate which the plaintiffs originally reported to another person with the property in title trust, and therefore, it is clear that the amount equivalent to shares in the real estate should be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes. Thus, the reasons for objection can not be deemed as an original decision of correction of the disposition in this case.

In the same purport, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant lawsuit had been filed with the legitimate filing period, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the assertion of the lawsuit, by failing to exercise the right to ask for explanation, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. In determining whether the instant disposition was illegal, the determination of the decision of the reduction of a certain amount of tax in this case does not affect any impact, and the legitimacy of the lower court’s additional determination on this point

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)