In a case where a taxation is revoked by a final judgment, the validity of interruption of prescription of the right to levy and collect national tax resulting from such taxation.

Since the interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that preventss the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds that the fact that the non-exercise of the right, which serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, occurred, is a system that preventss the progress of extinctive prescription by exercising the right by the person who has the right to collect a national tax by a tax payment notice, the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription that has already occurred by exercising the right by the person who has the right to collect a national tax, was revoked, and in a case where the seizure was made by a disposition to collect a national tax

Article 27(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 168 and 178 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu877 delivered on July 8, 1986 (dong) 85Nu769 delivered on July 8, 1986 (dong)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu233 decided July 5, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined as follows on November 1, 1979 as to whether the head of Sungdong District Tax Office imposed and collected global income tax and defense tax at the time of original adjudication on the plaintiff as of November 30 of the same year and the plaintiff's property was seized as of November 30 of the same year, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke the above disposition on the ground that the plaintiff did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, and the above judgment became final and conclusive in the Supreme Court after winning the lawsuit against the above court on May 15, 1984, the defendant again confirmed that the court imposed global income tax and defense tax in this case by stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax as of July 20, 1984, and then determined as to whether the above disposition was suspended by the attachment of the above global income tax and defense tax as of November 30 of the same year, 1979. In other words, since an administrative disposition revoked by a final and conclusive judgment becomes retroactively null and void from the first issue of the final judgment.

However, as long as the interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds that the fact that the non-exercise of the right, which serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, has occurred, the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription that has already occurred by the exercise of the right by the person who has the right to collect national taxes by a notice of tax payment, does not disappear since the relevant disposition of tax payment (tax payment notice) has been revoked. In addition, in the case of seizure based on the disposition of tax payment in arrears as in the instant case, the disposition of tax payment notice has been revoked and retroactively lost its validity, the relevant disposition of

As a result, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interruption of extinctive prescription due to a tax notice and a seizure, and thus, is therefore justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)