In a case where the tax authority revoked the tax disposition on the grounds of the procedural defect in the taxation disposition and issued such new taxation disposition, whether the new taxation disposition should be subject to separate trial procedures.

In a case where the tax authority finds the procedural defect that did not state the basis for calculating the amount of tax in the tax disposition in progress, the said tax disposition may be revoked and the same taxation disposition may be imposed again by supplementing procedural defect. In such a case, the new tax disposition should undergo a separate pre-assessment procedure.

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu406 Delivered on October 23, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu74 delivered on November 6, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the records, the plaintiff, as the main claim of this case, sought the revocation of the tax disposition by the defendant against the plaintiff on May 18, 1982, and the revocation of the tax disposition by the defendant against the plaintiff on December 6, 1983 as the conjunctive claim, respectively. The court below rejected the lawsuit on the main claim before remand and rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff on part of the conjunctive claim. The plaintiff did not appeal, and only the defendant appealed against the defendant among the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff appealed against the part against the defendant among the conjunctive claim. Since the plaintiff's appeal is justified, the court below reversed the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the conjunctive claim before remand, and it is obvious that the court below made a decision only on the above conjunctive claim

Therefore, the above main claim part shall be deemed to have been finally decided by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's failure to appeal against the judgment below prior to the remand. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's failure to deliberate and decide on it after the remand does not constitute an error of law. Therefore, it is groundless to

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In a case where the tax authority finds a procedural defect that did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax in the notice of tax assessment in progress, the said taxation disposition may be revoked and the same taxation disposition may be made again by supplementing procedural defect, and in such a case, the new taxation disposition shall be subject to the prior trial procedure separately (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu406, Oct. 23, 1984). Therefore, the court below's decision that the same purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prior trial procedure, and the party members' decision cited in the arguments are all different issues in this case, and it is not appropriate. Accordingly, the argument is groundless.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)

No signature or seal shall be affixed to Kim Jong-dong as an overseas business trip.