If a tax refund paid pursuant to an original disposition revoked ex officio is appropriated as a tax for a new disposition of imposition thereafter, whether there is a benefit in action to seek nullification of the said new disposition of imposition

When a new disposition of imposition is revoked ex officio and a new tax is refunded in accordance with the original disposition, if a tax is appropriated as a tax imposed upon a new disposition of imposition pursuant to Article 51(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax imposed upon the new disposition of imposition shall be deemed to have been fully paid. Therefore, there is no benefit to seek nullification of the disposition of imposition.

Article 1 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 3754 of Dec. 15, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu424 Delivered on January 13, 1981, 83Nu83 Delivered on July 12, 1983

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of Seogju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu52 delivered on November 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined as to the first ground of appeal. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 9 (which refers to double taxation) was calculated, or two tax payment notices (which refers to double taxation) were made on a single income. The plaintiff's ground of appeal is only a new argument that the plaintiff did not claim at the court below, and the plaintiff's tax paid on December 18, 1981 under the defendant's first disposition of December 23, 1983 (which was the plaintiff's first disposition) was revoked ex officio as of August 23, 1983, and the above tax to be refunded to August 24, 1983 under Article 51 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes was appropriated as the tax of this case, and it cannot be viewed that the above tax of this case was not paid on August 24, 1983, and it cannot be viewed that there was a misunderstanding of legal principles or a second tax payment notice on a single income appropriation. Thus, the decision of this case's ground of nullification is justified.

2. We examine the second ground of appeal of the above legal representative. The main point of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed for the plaintiff's main claim under the purport that there is no interest in confirmation, and that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed for the plaintiff's conjunctive claim prior to the disposition of this case, and this part of the claim is dismissed for the reason that the extinctive prescription period of the right to collect the national tax has not expired at the time of the disposition of this case, since the decision of the above main claim does not conclude that the disposition of this case is null and void, it is obvious that the part of the conjunctive claim and the grounds are inconsistent with each other. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Justice) are not able to sign and seal because he is during overseas business trip.