(a) Where a decision of reduction is made, the appeal shall be lodged;

(b) Whether a new taxation disposition shall be deemed to have been made in cases where a tax notice stating the reduced amount and the same payment period as that of the previous tax amount along with a notice of reduction or correction disposition;

A. A correction disposition that reduces the tax base and amount of tax is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, but the substance of which is not the initial and separate taxation disposition, changes in the original taxation disposition, and thereby brings about the favorable effect to taxpayers, such as partial revocation of tax amount. Therefore, in a case where the part that remains not yet revoked due to the relevant correction disposition is alleged to be unlawful, the subject of an appeal litigation is not revoked by the original decision of correction, and the decision of correction is not the subject of an appeal litigation.

B. Re-issuance with the same payment period as the previous acquisition tax amount reduced in a tax payment notice as stipulated in Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, along with the notification of partial modification of the imposition of local tax, shall be deemed to be for the taxpayer’s convenience of tax payment, rather than for the taxing authority to cancel the initial imposition of local tax and to make a new imposition.

(a) Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 25-2 of the Local Tax Act; Article 6 and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu740 decided Apr. 14, 1987 (Gong1987,815) 85Nu599 decided Dec. 22, 1987 (Gong1988,353) 91Nu391 decided Sep. 13, 1991 (Gong1991,2555) (Gong1983,297) 82Nu399 decided Dec. 14, 1982 (Gong1983,297)

Korean Teachers' Mutual Aid Association (Korean Teachers' Mutual Aid Association) (Attorney Hong-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The head of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Gu1574 delivered on April 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below is just in examining the process of cooking the evidence which was found in its judgment in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Where the tax authority made a correction disposition that reduces the tax base and the amount of tax subsequent to the imposition of a tax authority, the correction disposition is not an original and separate taxation disposition, but an original and separate taxation disposition changes its substance, and thereby brings a favorable effect to the taxpayer, such as partial revocation of the amount of tax. Therefore, in a case where the decision of correction is asserted on the grounds that the remaining portion of the tax amount still remains illegal, the decision of correction is not yet revoked by the original decision of correction, and the decision of correction is not an object of appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu391, Sept. 13, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599, Dec. 22, 1987).

According to the records, the defendant notified the plaintiff on November 25, 1991 about partial change in the imposition of local taxes and delivered a notice of change (change) of acquisition tax, which is a form prescribed in Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, to the plaintiff on November 16, 191, notified the correction disposition that reduces the tax base and tax amount of the initial disposition on the 16th of the same month. In addition, the re-issuance to the plaintiff with the same payment period as the previous amount of acquisition tax reduced in the payment notice under Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act should be deemed to be for the defendant to cancel the initial disposition and make a new

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation by deeming the reduction and correction disposition as a new taxation on November 25, 1991 as a new taxation, must be dismissed without examining whether or not the procedure of the previous trial is legitimate. Although the court below is erroneous to determine whether or not the procedure of the previous trial is legitimate, the rejection of the lawsuit of this case is justified, and therefore, it is without merit.

The Supreme Court Decision 82Nu399 Decided December 14, 1982 ruled 82Nu399 Decided December 14, 1982 is different from the case, and it cannot be an appropriate precedent in this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)