(a) Where a decision of correction is made to revoke or reduce part of the initial imposition disposition, taxation that is the object of an appeal litigation;

(b) Whether a decision on recognition or a notice on change of income amount is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation;

C. Whether an objection to the decision on recognition or the notice of change in the amount of income constitutes a prior trial procedure regarding subsequent taxation.

A. Where a tax authority issued a decision of correction of the contents of the initial tax disposition that partially revoke and reduces the amount of the tax imposed after a tax authority imposed a tax disposition, the above correction disposition affects the legal effect as to the portion of the tax amount reduced by it, not the initial tax disposition and independent tax disposition, and its substance, not the original tax disposition, is a disposition that changes the initial tax disposition and has the favorable effect on the taxpayer as to the partial revocation of the amount of tax. Therefore, where a dispute is raised as to the remaining part of the tax disposition that remains illegal as it is not yet revoked as a result of the decision of correction, it shall be the remaining part of the original tax disposition, which is not revoked by the decision of correction, and therefore, the decision of correction shall not be subject to appeal litigation.

B. The recognition decision or notice of change in income tax is merely a preliminary measure or prior procedure to establish and determine a withholding duty, and the withholding duty itself is established and finalized at the time of payment or deemed payment without waiting for a disposition of lower, etc., and thus, the recognition decision or notice of change in income amount itself cannot be deemed a tax imposition disposition independently subject to a prior trial procedure or appeal litigation.

C. Where the tax authority deemed the omitted portion of a corporation’s sales to belong to the representative director, and the corporation did not pay the withholding tax as to the deemed income amount within the prescribed period under the Income Tax Act, and thus, the corporation’s Class A earned income tax and its defense detailed and disposition was made to the corporation, the corporation shall be deemed as independent administrative disposition, and the corporation shall be deemed as a bonus deemed to have been notified of the change in the above income amount before the said tax disposition was issued and filed an objection against the above decision, and even at the time of examination and request for adjudgment, if the tax authority, without mentioning the above tax disposition as to the bonus deemed to have been filed, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. shall not be deemed to have been subject to the prior trial procedure as to the above taxation of Class A earned income.

(a) Article 127 of the Income Tax Act; Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu393 delivered on November 23, 1982; 82Nu35 delivered on April 12, 1983; 83Nu589 delivered on June 26, 1984

Mosung Cr.S.S.

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu1088 delivered on December 14, 1983

The part of the judgment below regarding the imposition of Class A earned income tax and the same defense tax shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined as to corporate tax as of January 18, 1982 and the defense tax, value-added tax, interest income tax, and the claim details and revocation of disposition (the grounds of appeal supplementary to the extent of supplement in the grounds of appeal).

After the tax authority rendered a decision to revoke or reduce a part of the initial tax imposition in accordance with the decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Director of the National Tax Tribunal by making a decision to revoke or reduce a part of the initial tax imposition in accordance with the decision, the above corrective disposition affects the legal effect only with respect to the part of the amount of the tax reduced by the tax authority. Thus, not the initial tax imposition disposition and separate taxation disposition, but the substance is a change in the initial tax imposition disposition and thereby has a favorable effect to the taxpayer, thereby bringing about the effect of partial revocation of the amount of tax. Thus, in a case where the decision of correction remains illegal and the remaining part of the original tax imposition disposition is not revoked, it shall be the remaining part without being revoked by the decision of correction among the initial tax imposition disposition, and the decision of correction shall not be subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu393, Nov. 23, 1982; 82Nu35, Apr. 12, 1983).

According to the records of this case, as recognized by the court below, the court below determined that the defendant's initial disposition of imposition of corporate tax against the plaintiff as of September 8, 1981 as of 162,903,095 won and 25,107,517 won of value-added tax, 21,447,921 won of interest income tax, 12,026,105 won of value-added tax, 12,145,343 won of the above defense tax, and that the plaintiff's initial disposition of imposition of tax against the plaintiff as of October 12, 1981 was unlawful for the reasons that the plaintiff's initial disposition of imposition of tax against the plaintiff as of Sep. 18, 1981 was unlawful for the reasons that the plaintiff's initial disposition of imposition of tax against the plaintiff as of Sep. 18, 1982, the court below decided that the above disposition of imposition of tax against the plaintiff's initial 198th of appeal was unlawful.

2. Class A employment income and the detailed and disposition of the same defense shall be examined ex officio; and

According to the records, the defendant had omitted sales of KRW 60,231,30 among total sales in the business year 1979, and paid KRW 44,621,40 as interest on bonds during the business year 1980, and decided to be deemed as belonging to the representative director of the plaintiff corporation for each of the above business years because it was unclear that the plaintiff did not pay the above deemed tax amount within the prescribed period of 1982. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above determination of 19,65,64,514 and the above determination of 19,60,000,000 won and 19,000 won, which were 19,000 won and 20,000 won, which were 19,000 won and 19,000 won, which were 20,000 won and 19,000 won. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above determination of 16.

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the grounds of appeal as to Class A earned income, the detailed defense, and the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition, and the corresponding part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal on the part of the claim for revocation of the remaining imposition is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)