Whether the payment deadline has expired

Where a correction disposition is taken to increase the tax base and tax amount due to omissions or errors in the tax base and tax amount, the original disposition becomes extinct due to the absorption of the increased tax amount, so the expiration of the payment period shall be determined based on the payment period for the increased tax amount

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant's disposition of demanding the payment of the defense tax surcharge against the designated parties listed in the separate sheet as of June 1, 1995 shall be revoked. 2. Of the lawsuit in this case, the part concerning the cancellation of the defendant's defense tax increased and increased payment demand disposition against the designated parties listed in the separate sheet as of September 15, 1995 shall be dismissed. 3. Litigation costs are assessed against the defendant.

1. Factual basis

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, 3-1, 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-3, 3-2, and 4-2, the whole purport of the pleading may be considered, and there is no counter-proof.

가. 소외 박ㅇㅇ가 1989. 4. 6. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇ동 산 ㅇㅇ의 ㅇ 임야 외 4필지를 다른 자에게 양도한 후 사망하여 그의 상속인인 별지 목록 기재 선정자들에 대하여 피고가 1995. 5. 1. 양도소득세 143,493,100원, 방위세 28,698,610원을 납부기한을 같은 해 5. 15.로 하여 부과하였다.

B. On June 1, 1995, the above designated parties agreed to pay the above payment deadline, and the defendant ordered the payment of the above capital gains tax, defense tax, and additional dues on each of the above taxes.

(C) On June 30, 1995, the aforementioned designated parties met the requirements for exemption from capital gains tax under Article 62 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989), and the defendant's objection is exempted from capital gains tax on September 5, 199, and the above exemption from capital gains tax was terminated on December 31, 1990, but income tax was reduced or exempted under Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Defense Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 198) x 30 years old x 40 years old x 50 years old 6 years old x 90 years old 196 years old x 30 years old 50 years old x 930 years old 430 years old ; the above selection and exemption was made again by the defendant for the reasons that the above designated parties were 50/106 years old x 930 4.30 years old ;

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff argues that the payment period of the above increased defense tax should be determined on the basis of the payment period after the above correction. As such, the above designated parties should not be limited to the payment period, and therefore, the above designated parties should be revoked the additional and increased additional charges of KRW 28,698,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,69,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 50/100 for KRW 28,69,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,69,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,69,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,69,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,69,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,695,610 for the above initial defense tax amount of KRW 28,698,610 for the above designated parties. Therefore, the defendant's claim that the above increased additional charges are lawful.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. On the other hand, in a case where a correction disposition is taken to increase the tax base and tax amount after the tax authority decided the tax base and tax amount, and there is an omission or error in the tax base and tax amount, the correction disposition is not a disposition to determine additional tax base and tax amount in excess of the original tax base and tax amount, but a disposition to determine the tax base and tax amount as a whole by including the initial tax base and tax amount in the original disposition according to the result found by a reinvestigation, and thus, if the correction disposition is made, the original disposition is extinguished as a matter of course by absorbing the correction disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu758 delivered on November 10, 195). This legal principle applies to this case, as seen in this case, the tax authority must exempt capital gains tax after determining the tax base and tax amount of the capital gains tax and the defense tax, and accordingly, found that the tax rate of the defense tax should be higher, and thus, it is the same in the form that the defendant additionally paid the amount increased in notifying the designated person.

Therefore, the defendant's demand for the payment of the cost of defense tax on June 1 of the same year based on the premise that the payment deadline is May 15 of the same year, and the above designated parties' demand for the payment of the cost of defense tax on June 1 of the same year shall be deemed to have been unlawful as a result, and

B. Meanwhile, as a matter of course, the increased additional dues on defense taxes are naturally arising pursuant to Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes when the time limit for payment expires without a final and conclusive procedure, and as seen above, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have issued a demand for payment of increased additional dues on the date of the above receipt on the ground that the Defendant mistakens that the increased additional dues have already occurred and received the increased additional dues from the aforementioned designated parties. As such, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation on the premise that the Defendant’s increased additional dues

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's demand for the payment of the additional dues of the defense tax on June 1, 1995 was illegal, the defendant's demand for the revocation is justified, and the part concerning the cancellation of the defendant's demand for the payment of increased additional dues of the defense tax on September 15, 1995 among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

July 10, 1997