Whether the illegality of the previous taxation disposition can be disputed in the litigation procedure for the increase disposition (affirmative)

In a case where there is a correction of increase or decrease in taxation, the prior taxation disposition has lost its independent existence value by absorbing it as a part of the corrective disposition, so even if the prior taxation disposition is made after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the prior trial procedure, there is no room for recognizing the absence or absence of existence caused by the final determination, and in the litigation procedure for the change disposition, the parties can contest whether it is illegal even with respect to matters included in the prior taxation already finalized.

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Yu-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of the tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5456 delivered on December 6, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In a case where the increase or decrease of a taxation disposition has been made, the preceding taxation disposition has lost its independent existence value by absorbing it as a part of the corrective disposition, and therefore, even if the preceding taxation disposition has already been determined after the lapse of the objection period or the completion of the procedure of the preceding trial, so long as the previous taxation disposition has been extinguished by losing its independent existence value, there is no room for recognizing the indiciability or the indiability of the previous taxation disposition, and even if it is included in the previous taxation disposition, the parties concerned in the litigation procedure for the correction disposition can dispute as to whether it is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu617, Feb. 9, 198). Therefore, the judgment of the court below to that purport is just and there

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

In the fact-finding of the court below, there is no error of law in the incomplete deliberation or the rules of evidence. Therefore, the issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)