Where a tax imposition disposition is partially revoked by a decision of correction, an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

In the case of seeking the revocation of the remaining portion of the original tax imposition disposition, which has not been revoked by the correction decision, from among the original tax imposition disposition, it should be the part of the first tax imposition disposition which has the effect.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 127 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu253 delivered on March 9, 1982, 82Nu55 delivered on September 14, 1982, 81Nu393 Delivered on November 23, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu65 delivered on December 10, 1981

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

According to the records, the plaintiff originally claimed the claim of this case that "the disposition of imposition of KRW 409,100,102, which the defendant made to the plaintiff as of May 24, 1979 and June 16, 1979, is revoked," and the claim of this case is primarily stated in the correction application of March 30, 1981, "the disposition of imposition of KRW 189,374,251, which the defendant issued to the plaintiff as of March 17, 1980, imposed upon the plaintiff as of March 17, 1980, is revoked," and the court below determined that "the above disposition of imposition of KRW 189,374,251, the amount of unpaid tax exceeds KRW 149,506,938,939,9789,978,970,000,000,000,000 won pursuant to the national tax adjudication decision corrected to the plaintiff as of this case."

In light of the above facts stated in Gap's 3 evidence and the facts stated in the 19-year judgment and the purport of the non-party witness's testimony, the defendant's original 19-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-2-2-8-2-2-1-6-2-8-2-2-19-1-6-2-2-14-7-1-6-2-8-7-2-1-7-2-3-8-2-19-7-19-7-7-19-7-1-6-2-2-1-7-2-19-7-1-6-2-19-7-1-6-1-6-2-19-7-2-14-7-7-19-7-14-7-7-7-17-19-7-19-7-14-7

Nevertheless, the plaintiff revised the purport of the claim and sought the revocation of the disposition of imposition of March 17, 1980. Thus, the court below should have deliberated after making it clear that the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of the 195.24 and June 16 of the same year from May 1979 by exercising the right of explanation, and that the court below should have tried after making it clear which error was caused by an error that the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of the 195.24 and June 16 of the same year. However, the court below did not reach this point, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the disposition of correction due to insufficient deliberation, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the disposition of the 19

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court, which is the original court, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)