In a case where a taxation disposition is revoked, the validity of interruption of prescription of the right to collect the national tax accrued by such taxation.

As the interruption of extinctive prescription is a system that prevents the progress of extinctive prescription on the grounds of the fact that the non-exercise of the right which serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, 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 tax by a tax payment notice is not subject to revocation of the relevant disposition (tax payment notice).

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

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686 Decided July 8, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu212 delivered on October 4, 1985

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's decision to the effect that the defendant imposed an additional global income tax and defense tax on the dividend income in the year 1976 on the plaintiff as of September 15, 1980, and the plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Court (the above court 81Gu250) and the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff that cancelled the above disposition on the ground that the above disposition was an illegal disposition that the above disposition was not specified in the calculation basis of the amount of tax, and that the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and therefore, the defendant again issued the disposition in favor of the plaintiff, clearly stating the ground for calculating the amount of tax as of May 16, 1984. Accordingly, according to the Income Tax Act provisions which were enforced at the time of the above income occurrence, the prescription period for the right to impose global income tax shall be calculated on the plaintiff as of May 1, 197, and since the right to impose tax was revoked for five years, the right to impose tax on the above global income tax becomes void by the statute of extinctive prescription.

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 interruption of extinctive prescription is non-exercise of the right which serves as the basis of extinctive prescription, the effect of interruption of extinctive prescription that has already been caused by the exercise of the right by the person who has the right to collect national tax by a notice of tax payment does not disappear on the ground that the disposition of imposition (tax payment notice) has been revoked, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles on

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)