In accordance with Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the physical and personal scope, such as a decision of correction, which can be taken as follow-up measures according to the judgment and decision after the exclusion period

In light of the purport of Article 26-2(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4672 of Dec. 31, 1993), even if one year has passed from the date the judgment, decision, etc. became final and conclusive, barring special circumstances such as succession of tax liability, a person who received the relevant decision, etc. can make a correction disposition, etc. according to the relevant decision, etc., only against a taxpayer who has the effect of the decision, etc. cancelled or changed, and does not make a re-disposition against a third party who does not have the effect of the tax disposition subject to revocation or change. Thus, unless the special exclusion period under Article 26-2(2) of the former Framework Act does not apply, the national tax exclusion period imposed after the lapse of the national tax exclusion period shall be null and void.

Article 26-2(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4672 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15968 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 102(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see current Article 74(1))

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu68 delivered on September 24, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2520), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6657 Delivered on September 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2601), Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1752 Delivered on June 10, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1177)

Plaintiff

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2003Nu323 delivered on July 25, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4672 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that income tax shall not be imposed after five years from the date on which it is assessable. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that where an objection, a request for examination, a request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, or a lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act is filed, a decision of correction or other necessary disposition may be made within one year from the date on which the decision or decision becomes final and conclusive, notwithstanding paragraph (1). Article 12-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15968 of Dec. 31, 1998) provides that the period of exclusion from taxation shall be calculated from the date following the date on which the tax base and amount of national tax are returned to the resident within the period of time limit for filing the return or the deadline for filing the tax base, which does not fall within the period of exclusion period of taxation.

In a judgment on the imposition of gift tax, which was imposed and notified to the non-party, even though the court below decided that the obligation of KRW 1.5 billion is deemed to be an obligation deducted from the taxable amount of gift tax, and that the tax base and the amount of the tax should be reduced or corrected, the special exclusion period under Article 26-2 (2) of the Act cannot be applied to the disposition on imposition of transfer income tax of this case which does not affect the effect of the taxation. Accordingly, the final return period of the tax payment obligation of this case established due to the non-party-paid donation on November 10, 193 shall be the period of imposition of transfer income tax of May 13, 1994 under the conditions as prescribed by Article 102 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, and the exclusion period of imposition shall be five years after May 13, 1999, and the disposition of this case by the defendant on April 19, 200 was made after the exclusion period of imposition. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and related Acts and the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.

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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)