In a case where a taxation disposition is revoked, the validity of interruption of prescription of the right to impose and collect national taxes arising from such taxation disposition.

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, is an act that preventss the progress of extinctive prescription, the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription that has already occurred by the exercise of rights by the person who has the right to collect national tax by a

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

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686 Decided July 8, 1986 85Nu836 Decided September 9, 1986

Attorney Jeon Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1312 delivered on September 5, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant's assertion that the extinctive prescription of the above national tax imposition right was suspended by the disposition of tax payment as of July 6, 1981 after the defendant confirmed the fact that the extinctive prescription of the above national tax imposition right was terminated by the above disposition of tax payment as of July 6, 1981 after the defendant issued a favorable judgment from the above court of November 4, 1983 on the ground that the plaintiff did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive as of April 10, 1984. The court below held that the suspension of the extinctive prescription of the above disposition by the final judgment of the court below against the defendant's assertion that the extinctive prescription of the national tax imposition right was terminated by the disposition of tax payment as of July 6, 1981, which was retroactively invalidated by the previous disposition of tax payment notice.

However, 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, it is the opinion of the party members that the effect of interruption of extinctive prescription already occurred by the exercise of the right by the person who has the right to collect national tax by the notice of tax payment does not disappear even if the relevant disposition of imposition (tax notice) is revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu686, Jul. 8, 1986)

Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interruption of extinctive prescription by a duty payment notice. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)