A. In a case where a taxation disposition was revoked by a final judgment, the validity of interruption of prescription resulting from such taxation

B. Whether the cause for interruption of ex officio is a matter of hearing

A. The effect of interrupting extinctive prescription of the right to impose and collect upon the imposition does not disappear even after the revocation of the imposition.

B. If the grounds for interrupting the extinctive prescription of the right to impose tax are revealed on the record, the court shall ex officio examine and determine the ex officio in accordance with Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act, even if there is no explicit defense by the tax authority

(a) Articles 27 and 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686, 769, 877 Decided July 8, 1986 and Supreme Court Decision 86Nu15 Decided February 24, 1987 and 85Nu85, 965 Decided May 26, 1987 (dong)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1043 Decided December 27, 1985

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding each global income tax and defense tax for the year 1974 and 1977 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the above dismissal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant imposed and collected global income tax and defense tax for the year 1972 through 1977 at the time of original adjudication on October 11, 1979, the court below determined that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke the above disposition to the Seoul High Court on April 10, 1984 on the ground that the plaintiff did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, and that the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 1985, the defendant again issued a disposition of imposition of global income tax and defense tax in this case with the grounds for calculating the amount of tax as of February 21, 1985, and that the statute of limitations for the final return of tax base for the year 1972 through 2705 of the Income Tax Act should be terminated by the end of May 197, 197, and the final return of tax base for global income for the year 270 years after the amendment of the Act No. 2705, Dec. 16, 197.

However, with respect to each global income tax and defense tax that accrue from 1974 to 1977, since a prior imposition disposition was rendered at the time of original adjudication as of October 11, 1979, which was five years prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations of the imposition and collection right, the interruption of the statute of limitations shall be interrupted. Since the statute of limitations shall not have been cancelled after the cancellation of the statute of limitations (see each of the Decisions 85Nu686, 769,87, Jul. 8, 1986). Accordingly, the parts of each global income tax and defense tax that accrue from 1974 to 1977 are not made after the expiration of the statute of limitations, so long as the interruption of prescription is recognized in the original adjudication itself as a result of the fact that the grounds for the interruption of prescription were revealed on the record and that the court below committed ex officio determination in accordance with Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act even if there was no explicit objection as to the interruption of prescription, which affected the ex officio review of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding each global income tax and defense tax for the year 1974 and 1977 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)