(a) The validity of the original disposition and the validity of the original disposition, where a disposition of correction is made to increase the tax base and amount;

(b) Validity of the delivery of successful bid price made without being served with a notice at the time of the delivery of the successful bid price for the corporate tax and value-added tax;

(c) In case where the execution of provisional seizure is revoked after the court deposited the amount of dividends for the creditor of provisional seizure's unconfirmed claim, the court of auction for the voluntary auction, the reversion and calculation of such amount of dividends, and the burden

A. In the case of the increase or decrease of a taxation disposition, the original taxation disposition is deemed as a part of the revised disposition, thereby losing its independent value, and thus, even if the original taxation disposition was revoked, the disposition of revocation does not have any effect as a disposition lacking its object.

B. The corporate tax and value-added tax are taxes in the form of tax return, or when the government determines the said tax and amount, the tax liability becomes final and conclusive at the time of the determination, and the taxation disposition takes effect upon legitimate notification to taxpayers. Thus, if the notice is not served at the time of the issuance of the successful bid price with respect to corporate tax and value-added tax, the delivery of the successful bid price is made

C. Since the provisions on the objection to a compulsory auction do not apply mutatis mutandis to the voluntary auction, if the auction court deposits the amount of dividends for the non-determined claim of the creditor having provisional seizure but cancels the execution of provisional seizure, the deposited amount shall be distributed additionally to other creditors. In this case, the amount to be distributed shall be calculated on the basis of the amount of the actual claim already finalized, and it shall not be calculated on the basis of the amount of the provisional seizure claim which is anticipated to have been deposited, and the amount of other provisional seizure creditor's claim for provisional seizure has a difference in the amount of the confirmed claim or the amount of the actual claim, which

A. Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 23 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 34 of the former Auction Act (repealed by Act No. 4201, Dec. 31, 1990), Article 741(c) of the Civil Act, Article 1 of the former Auction Act (repealed by Act No. 4201, Dec. 31, 1990), Articles 18, 261, and 589 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988,353) 86Nu617 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong1988,522) 90Nu219 delivered on June 1, 198 (Gong1990.1083) (Gong1083 delivered on April 26, 1983) 80Nu527 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Gong1983,890) 85Nu2539 delivered on September 13, 198 (Gong198,1262)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na41667 delivered on July 20, 1990

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

In a case where the tax authority found an error or omission in the tax base and amount of tax after the taxation was conducted, and corrected them, the tax base and amount of tax initially determined on the tax base and amount of tax when the increase was made shall not only be determined on the basis of the increase, but also the tax base and amount of tax initially determined on the basis of the increase, including the tax base and amount of tax initially determined on the tax base and amount of tax. Thus, the first taxation disposition was extinguished by losing the value of independent existence as a part of the subsequent correction disposition, and only the correction disposition is subject to litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu225, Dec. 1

As determined by the court below, even though the non-party Gwangju District Director decided to grant the permission of auction on the Korean machinery of this case on June 11, 198 (including special surtax; hereinafter the same shall apply), the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax (including special surtax), defense tax and value-added tax were determined on the basis of the previous auction price determined on June 11, 198, but the decision to grant the permission of auction was made on July 16, 200 on the basis of the auction price, and notified the taxpayer of the decision to increase the tax base and tax amount of the above corporate tax, defense tax and value-added tax as a whole, and in addition, the difference between the original decision and the original decision should be deemed as extinguished by absorbing the subsequent increase or decrease of the tax base and tax amount as well as the original decision. Thus, even if the above Gwangju District Tax Director revoked the original decision on November 7, 198, it is justified in the judgment that the original decision was null and void before the original decision to revoke the taxation.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The corporate tax and value-added tax shall, when the Government determines the tax base and amount of tax by filing a return method, be determined at the time of the determination, and it shall take effect upon the lawful notification to the taxpayer.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below, which judged that the payment of the successful bid price was made without any legal ground, is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and the theory of lawsuit is not proper and therefore there is no argument.

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(1) When, under Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, a court of execution has deposited the amount of distribution for the non-determined claim of the creditor having the provisional seizure, and has completed the distribution procedure without any objection as to the existence of the preserved claim from other creditors on the date of distribution, the amount of distribution deposited shall not be additionally distributed to other creditors, even if the non-existence of the preserved claim becomes final and conclusive, and even if the provisional seizure execution is revoked, it shall be paid to the debtor instead of additional dividends to other creditors. However, in the case of voluntary auction, since the provisions on the distribution of the compulsory auction are not applicable mutatis mutandis, the amount of distribution deposited when the provisional seizure execution is revoked, the amount of distribution deposited shall be additionally distributed to other creditors. Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff is disputing the distribution of the auction price due to the voluntary auction, the amount to be received by the plaintiff shall be calculated based

In the above purport, the court below's measure that calculated the amount of dividends based on the amount of actual claim confirmed by the plaintiff is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as theory of lawsuit.

(2) In addition, comparing the reasoning of the judgment of the court below with the records, some of the creditors' claims stated in Schedule 2 to 8 attached Table 3 of the judgment of the court below are the amount of provisional seizure at the time of issuance of successful bid price, such as the theory of lawsuit, but the above amount of provisional seizure claims is different from the amount of confirmed claim or actual claim amount, and there is a burden of proving the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim amount affects the amount of the plaintiff's dividends, and even after examining the records, there is no evidence of assertion by the plaintiff, and there is no error

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)