A. Whether a disposition of taxation in a confirmative meaning exists when a tax authority accepts a final return on the tax base of income tax (negative)

(b) Whether a disposition of refusal of a revised return or a disposition of refusal of refund of a voluntarily paid tax amount is subject to administrative litigation, where a tax authority has not made a decision on imposition of the final return on tax base

A. With respect to the income tax for which a tax liability is determined by a tax authority’s disposition, the tax liability is finalized only when a determination and notification are made pursuant to the Income Tax Act, and even when the final return on the tax base is made based on the final return on the tax base, it cannot be deemed that there was a tax disposition identifying the tax liability, unless such determination and notification are made. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that there was a tax disposition within the confirmative meaning merely because the

B. If the tax authority has not notified the final return on the tax base, the disposition of imposition does not exist, and the disposition of refusal of a revised return on a non-existent decision of imposition or refusal of refund to the voluntarily paid tax amount cannot be deemed as an independent disposition subject to the administrative litigation.

(a)Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 10-2(3) of its Enforcement Decree, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 107 and Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu642 delivered on April 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1086). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu276 delivered on April 27, 1990

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1488 delivered on August 1, 200

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu409 delivered on May 15, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

ex officio deemed.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Defense Tax Act, Articles 100 and 107 of the Income Tax Act, the lower court presumed that there was a confirmed disposition by the Defendant on May 30, 1985, which determined the amount of the defense tax amount of KRW 23,056,461, the Defendant’s refusal of a request for refund of KRW 4,547,516 of the said disposition and the subsequent difference of KRW 18,508,945 of the said disposition was unlawful.

However, in the case of the income tax for which tax liability is determined only by the tax authority's disposition, the tax liability is finalized only when the determination and notification of the tax amount are made pursuant to the Income Tax Act, and even when the final return on the tax base of the taxpayer is made based on the final return on the tax base, it cannot be deemed that there was a disposition of taxation identifying the tax liability, unless such determination and notification are made. It cannot be deemed that there was a disposition of taxation within the confirmative meaning on the ground that the tax office received the final return on the tax base within the internal confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision

Therefore, since the plaintiff made the final return on the tax base of this case on May 30, 1985, the defendant did not notify the final return on the tax base of this case, the imposition of KRW 23,056,461 shall not exist in the amount of income tax belonging to the year 1984. Moreover, the disposition of refusal of return on revised tax return or refusal of refund to the amount of voluntary payment shall not be deemed an independent disposition subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu276, Apr. 27, 1990).

As such, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case entered the merits and made a decision. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confirmation of tax claims and legal principles as to the subject of administrative litigation. Thus, the judgment below is not necessary to determine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer, and it is deemed sufficient to judge the party members in this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, who is the losing party, by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)