(a) whether the revocation suit concerning the portion of the tax assessment that was not yet notified is appropriate;

B. Whether the interruption of prescription is effective as to the remaining portion by a notice of tax payment on a part of taxable objects (negative)

A. If the portion of the taxation disposition is not legally notified to the taxpayer by the tax payment notice, etc., it cannot take effect, and thus, the taxpayer’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax on this portion is unlawful as it does not exist.

B. The extinctive prescription system refers to a system under which a right holder is entitled to exercise his/her right, but the exercise of his/her right continues for a fixed period, i.e., the extinguishment of his/her right. Therefore, where part of a claim can be specified by a right holder, the interruption of prescription for the remaining part of the claim is not effective, and this does not change even in the national tax claim, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to impose tax on the remaining portion of the taxable object shall not be interrupted by a notice of tax payment on

(a) Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu527 delivered on April 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu649 delivered on February 13, 1985

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu55 delivered on January 17, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s significant and ○○○○ and △△△△ on the land in Daegu-gu ( Address 1 omitted); (b) the building acquired it on March 21, 1972 and transferred it to the Nonparty on April 24, 1979; and (c) there was a gold of KRW 2,402,654 on gains from transfer (based on the base market price); (d) the Defendant, on October 29, 1980, transferred the said gains from transfer to the Plaintiff on June 5, 1250 of the said 1250-16 site in which the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, 3,318,815 won (=2,402,6486,786,96365, etc.); and (e) the Plaintiff’s tax base was not imposed on the Plaintiff’s 16,376,626,265,365, etc. of the above tax base was not imposed on the Plaintiff’s tax base.

According to the records, all of the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for the invalidation of the law as alleged in the arguments.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below is just in holding that the defendant imposed and collected corporate tax 653,455 won and defense tax 103,310 won for the business year 1978 against the plaintiff on January 10, 198, but it exceeded 268,734 won among the above corporate tax 653,455 won on January 15, 1982 according to the judgment of the Daegu High Court 80-229, and that the amount exceeding 43,723 won out of the defense tax 103,310 won was revoked and reduced, and there was no error in the decision of the court below as to the plaintiff 2's revocation of the above corporate tax 1978, 300,000 won and 250,000 won and 350,000 won and 375,000 won and 25,000 won and 375,00 won and 25,00 won and 375,0

However, if the lawsuit by the plaintiff principal against the above cancellation is unlawful because there is no disposition subject to administrative litigation as above, even though the plaintiff is deemed to have filed a revocation lawsuit in the sense of seeking nullification of the taxation disposition, such lawsuit should be deemed unlawful for the same reason. However, even though the lawsuit is deemed to have been filed for the same reason, the judgment of the court below is erroneous, but the decision of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit against this part is made in accordance with different opinions. However, the decision of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit against this part cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is without merit to decide on

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

Article 27 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that with respect to the extinctive prescription under paragraph (1) of this Article, the Civil Act shall apply except as otherwise provided for in this Act or other tax-related Acts, and Article 28 (1) of the same Act provides for a notice of tax payment as one of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription under Article 27 of the same Act.

However, the extinctive prescription system refers to a right holder's exercise of his right for a certain period, i.e., if the non-exercise of his right continues to exist for a certain period, the interruption of prescription as to the remaining portion of the claim shall not take effect in cases where the part of the claim can be specified. This does not change in the state tax claim (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu649 delivered on February 13, 1985). Accordingly, the court below's decision that the defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the omission of the statute of limitations period and the omission of the statute of limitations period as to the above portion of the defendant's tax return as of January 12, 1978 and the corporate tax of KRW 896,750 delivered on January 12, 1978 and KRW 11,295 and the defense tax of KRW 1,807 delivered on March 15, 1982.

Therefore, since all appeals are without merit, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)