A. Whether a confirmed tax disposition is imposed in a case where the tax authority accepted the final return on the tax base (negative)

B. Whether a disposition of refusal of a revised return on the final return on the tax base of defense tax and a disposition of refusal of refund of the tax amount voluntarily paid constitutes a disposition subject to the administrative litigation (negative)

A. In the case of taxes for which tax liability is determined by a tax authority’s disposition, the tax liability becomes finalized only when the determination and notification of the tax amount are made pursuant to the provisions of each tax-related Act. Therefore, even in a case where a final tax base return is made on the basis of the final tax base return of the taxpayer, the imposition disposition identifying the tax liability cannot be deemed to have been made, unless such determination and notification are made. Moreover, the imposition disposition within the confirmative meaning

B. With respect to income tax for which tax liability is determined by a decision of imposition and defense tax based on which a revised return is made, it does not stipulate the duty of notification or correction as a result of the tax authority’s duty to cooperate with the tax authority that determines the amount of tax. Thus, a revised return on the final return of defense tax shall be deemed to have provided the revised data as a performance of the duty to cooperate with the tax authority that determines the amount of tax. After the disposition of imposition, a revised return shall be deemed to have only the meaning of urging the tax authority to make a revised return. Thus, the disposition of refusal of a revised return on a non-existent decision or rejection of a voluntary payment, which is merely a mere refusal

(a) Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 10-2, 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 5 of the Defense Tax Act; Articles 107 and 128 of the Income Tax Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu642 delivered on April 13, 1990, 87Nu275 delivered on April 27, 1990

Lee Jong-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu672 delivered on February 5, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

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

We examine ex officio.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below on June 29, 1984, when the non-party 1 corporation was merged with the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the merger of the non-party 1 corporation for the merger of the merger of the non-party 1 for the stocks of the merged company for the amount of 500 won per face value to the non-party 1 corporation for the stocks of the merged company for the amount of 1,00 won per face value to the non-party 4, Article 26 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act, Article 50 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 48 (1) 4 of the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption of Taxes for the following reasons.

On May 30, 1985, the Plaintiff filed a final return on global income tax and the tax base on the same defense tax for which it had already been paid in 1984, and calculated the income tax by including each of the above constructive dividend income in other global income pursuant to the provisions on special taxation on the aggregate of assets under the Income Tax Act, and calculated the total tax base at KRW 30,570,250 for the double income tax, 20% for the double income tax, and 8,319,175 for the tax-exempt portion, and 6,057,820 won after deducting the already paid tax amount, and paid it by self-return at the same time, notwithstanding the absence of any obligation to pay it, the Plaintiff filed a return by mistake, even though the defense tax amount corresponding to the portion of the instant constructive dividend income which has already been paid by the defense tax, and filed a return on the tax base at KRW 1,707,399, and filed an application for refund of 6,711,76 won for the difference.

(2) Since Article 50 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is null and void in violation of the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of substantial taxation, the value of new shares that the plaintiff et al. received to a merged company should be calculated in accordance with Article 5 (5) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, it is erroneous to deem that the defendant had income from the constructive dividend of KRW 290 per share. Moreover, since the defendant made a false report on the fact that the defense tax of the merged company for the constructive dividend income of this case should be withheld in full and that it is not necessary to add up at the time of the final return on tax base, it is erroneous that the defendant's disposition imposing 8,319,175 won as defense tax or refusal of the above revised return and the application for refund was unlawful. Accordingly, the court below confirmed that the plaintiff's voluntary report was legitimate and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims based on the premise that the defendant had no grounds to impose the above imposition after the final return on tax base.

(3) However, in the case of taxes 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 required under the provisions of each tax law. Even in a case where a final return of tax base is made based on the final return of tax base by the taxpayer, it cannot be deemed that there was a tax disposition identifying the tax liability, unless such determination and notification are made (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu642 delivered on April 13, 190), and it cannot be deemed that there was a tax disposition within the confirmative meaning solely on the

On May 30, 1985, the defendant did not notify the final return on the tax base of this case. Thus, there is no disposition of imposition of KRW 8,319,175 against the pro rata income tax of 1984.

(4) Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who files a final return on the final return of tax base may file a revised return if any omission occurs in the descriptions thereof. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that if there are items to be stated in the revised return of tax base that reduces the tax base or the amount of tax to be paid, or increases the tax amount to be refunded, the Government shall investigate the result and notify the result to the reporter, and shall correct the matters to be corrected at the same time. According to Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 10-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, only the above national tax as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as corporate tax, value-added tax, special consumption tax, liquor tax, securities transaction tax, or education tax, and the tax liability of which is finalized by the revised return does not stipulate the duty of notification or correction as a result of the tax authority's duty to cooperate with the tax authority that makes the revised return of tax amount, it shall be deemed that the revised report of this case does not exist.

(5) The judgment of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no defense tax imposition disposition that the plaintiff seeks revocation in this case, and that the return of modification and the refusal of application for refund are not subject to administrative litigation, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case should be dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, notwithstanding the fact that the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the confirmation of defense tax and the legal principles on the subject of administrative litigation, and further, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Furthermore, since the case is deemed sufficient to be decided on the party member

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)