Whether additional dues should be determined in cases where a new taxation is imposed after cancelling the initial taxation.

Where a judgment ordering cancellation of an initial disposition for tax payment becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the tax authority had omitted the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the tax authority has revoked the initial disposition for tax payment, the initial disposition for tax payment shall retroactively become void. Therefore, the amount of tax paid by the initial disposition for tax payment shall be determined for additional dues pursuant to Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, by falling under the "national tax refund due to revocation of the imposition after payment" under Article 52 subparagraph 1

Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu153 Decided September 9, 1986, 86Nu197 Decided February 10, 1987

Vusheshes Co., Ltd

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1178 delivered on November 14, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where a judgment ordering cancellation of an initial disposition for tax payment becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the tax authority had omitted the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the tax authority had cancelled the initial disposition for tax payment, the initial disposition for tax payment shall be deemed retroactively null and void. As such, the amount of tax paid by the initial disposition for tax payment constitutes "national tax refund due to revocation of the imposition after payment" under Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 52 of the same Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu197, Feb. 10, 1987).

The court below held that the decision of the court below was unlawful on December 28, 1983 and the decision of the court below ordering cancellation of the disposition of this case was rendered on the ground that the initial disposition of this case was omitted in the tax payment notice, and that the dismissal of appeal became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court's ruling on February 8, 1985, the defendant made a new disposition against the plaintiff, stating the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, and determined the amount of tax for which additional dues are not added due to cancellation of the initial disposition of this case, as refund money, and confirmed that the defendant did not make a decision on the calculation of additional dues for the amount of tax imposed again. In light of the records as seen above, the decision of the court below is just and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the argument.

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 Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)