The case holding that where the tax authority has cancelled the previous disposition on the ground that the time of inclusion in the gross income was wrong in the determination of the national tax adjudication, it does not constitute a disposition that does not apply the exclusion period under Article 26-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to re-disposition the relevant gross income by including it in the gross income for another business

The case holding that where the tax authority has cancelled the previous disposition on the ground that the time of inclusion in the gross income has been wrong in the determination of the national tax adjudication, it does not constitute a case where the decision of correction or other necessary disposition can be made in accordance with the relevant decision until one year has passed from the date when the decision as provided in Article 26-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes became final and conclusive.

Article 26-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Sejong Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu2941 delivered on October 2, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, asserted that the Plaintiff’s inclusion of the technology development reserve in the gross income for the business year 1994 against the Defendant was improper and sought revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax on March 12, 1999, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal rendered a ruling to correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax on March 1994 on the ground that the technology development reserve in this case is not to be included in the gross income for the business year 1994, but to be included in the gross income for the business year 1992, and the Defendant determined that the disposition to exclude the amount of corporate tax on May 19, 199 by deducting the technology development reserve in this case from the gross income for the business year 194 and adding 80,147,920 won to the gross income for the business year 192, and that the disposition to exclude the amount of corporate tax on the date when 2 years elapsed from the date when 1992 was again included in the corporate tax for the business year 192.

In light of the relevant laws and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the exclusion period after the litigation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)