[1] Whether the initial disposition is absorption and extinction of the increase disposition even in a case where an increase or decrease disposition that was issued with only the difference between the initial disposition and the initial disposition is made (affirmative), and whether the initial disposition can contest the tax base and the tax amount of the initial disposition in the litigation procedure on the increase

[2] Where the second disposition by reduction or correction of the first disposition is null and void, and the third disposition merely contains only the increased tax base and amount of tax than the second disposition in a tax notice, whether the third disposition should be deemed an increase or correction of the first disposition (affirmative)

[3] The requirements and criteria for determining whether a taxation is void as a matter of course

[1] Where a corrective disposition is taken to increase tax base and tax amount, the corrective disposition is not a disposition to determine additional tax base and tax amount exceeding the original tax base and tax amount in the original disposition, but to determine the tax base and tax amount as a whole by including only the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition in accordance with the result of a reinvestigation found. Thus, if a corrective disposition is taken to correct tax base and tax amount, the initial disposition first becomes extinct as a matter of course by absorbing the corrective disposition, and only the corrective disposition is subject to litigation, and it is identical to where only the difference with the initial decision was additionally notified at the time of the correction. Even if the initial disposition becomes final and conclusive upon the expiration of the objection period or the completion of the pre-trial procedure, the taxpayer may dispute not only the tax base and tax amount increased by the corrective disposition but also the tax base and tax amount determined by the original disposition in the litigation procedure for the increased tax amount

[2] In a case where a notice of determination or decision of correction of inheritance tax is made through a tax payment notice, it shall become effective as stated in the tax payment notice. The second disposition, which corrected the first disposition, shall not be deemed to exist because it was not notified by the tax payment notice. If the second disposition, which corrected the second disposition, calculated the tax base and amount of tax on the premise of the second decision at the time of the third decision, and then written the notice of tax payment along with only the difference of the tax base and amount of tax on the second decision, in a tax payment notice, it is reasonable to deem that the tax authority's internal intent added the second disposition to the second disposition, which does not have objective meaning as stated in the tax payment notice, rather than adding the amount stated in the second disposition to the amount stated in the tax payment notice. Accordingly, the third disposition shall be deemed to constitute the second disposition, which added the tax base and amount of tax on the first disposition to the amount stated in the tax payment notice, and thus, the first disposition shall become extinguished as a whole.

[3] It is not always null and void because the taxation disposition is due to mistake, but it does not always mean that the procedure and content of the taxation disposition based on mistake may be the grounds for invalidation or revocation depending on the degree of illegality in the case where there is an illegal cause as a result of mistake. However, in order to make the taxation disposition null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegal cause is insufficient, and its defect must be significant and obvious. In determining whether there is a significant and apparent defect, it is necessary to consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations on the basis of the taxation disposition in question from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the characteristics of the specific case itself.

[1] Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 19 and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of July 27, 1994) / [2] Articles 22(1) and 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 25 (see current Article 76 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) and Article 25-2 (see current Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Inheritance Tax Act, Article 19(1) (see current Article 79 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801 of December 31, 1992) / [3] Article 109 of the Civil Act, Article 209 of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4707 of July 27, 194), Article 209 of the former Inheritance Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu288 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1746), Supreme Court Decision 84Nu225 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 209), Supreme Court Decision 90Da5122 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong1991, 856), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13139 delivered on May 11, 199 (Gong1999, 118) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5052 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong195, 1502) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu29849 delivered on May 19, 197 (Gong199, 1985, 1502) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2983985 delivered on May 1985, 1985.

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorneys Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu29388 delivered on August 22, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, after the plaintiffs' non-party 1 died on June 12, 1989, the court below recognized the total amount of inheritance tax of 1,097,373,195, and the total amount of defense tax of 1,280,268,727 as 1,67, and imposed the amount of inheritance tax of 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000,000 1,00,000,000 1,00,000,000 1,00,000,000,000,000 1,06,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000 won 2,07,01.

Based on the above facts, the court below found that the defendant's second disposition notified only the detailed statement of total tax amount written by the inheritor who was not a tax payment notice only for the plaintiff 1 in the course of the second disposition, and thus the second disposition is null and void for the plaintiffs. Although the third decision amount was reduced in substance more than the amount of the first decision, the third tax payment notice is merely a notice of additional tax amount and tax base at the time of the third decision, and the third tax payment notice is a notice of additional tax amount and tax base, and the third tax payment notice has the meaning of the increase in the first disposition. Thus, the third tax payment notice is a notice of additional tax amount for the first disposition, and the third tax payment notice has the meaning of the first disposition. Thus, the first disposition is a subject of the third disposition, which was incorporated into part of the third disposition, which is an increase and correction, and it was merely a legitimate prior trial procedure as to the third disposition and the third disposition was reduced or exempted. Thus, the third disposition subject to the third disposition is rejected as a separate and unlawful lawsuit against the defendant's first disposition and the first appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal related to the legal nature of the third disposition

Where a correction disposition is made to increase the tax base and amount of tax, the correction disposition is not a disposition to determine the initial tax base and amount in excess of the initial tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition, but to determine the tax base and amount as a whole by including the initial tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition according to the result found by a reinvestigation. If the correction disposition is made, the initial disposition is extinguished as a matter of course by absorbing the correction disposition, and only the correction disposition becomes an object of litigation. This is the same as where only the difference with the initial decision was notified at the time of correction. Even if the initial disposition becomes final and conclusive upon the expiration of the period of objection or the completion of the pre-trial procedure, a taxpayer may contest not only the tax base and amount of tax increased by the correction disposition but also the tax base and amount of tax determined by the initial disposition if it is unlawful after deliberation and determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu288, Dec. 11, 1984; 29Nu2965, Dec. 297, 1984).

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the second disposition of this case cannot be deemed to exist since it was not notified by the notice of tax payment. However, the defendant calculated the total tax base and tax amount on the premise of the second decision at the time of the third decision (the reduced amount, compared to the first disposition), and then notified the plaintiffs by stating only the difference between the tax base and tax amount on the second decision. Thus, even if the defendant intended to add the amount to the second decision, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant added the amount to the second disposition, which does not have an objective meaning as stated in the notice of tax payment, rather than adding the amount stated in the notice of tax payment to the second disposition, the amount stated in the notice of tax payment as a whole. Therefore, the third disposition is deemed to constitute the second disposition of increased or decreased tax base and tax amount as a whole, and the first disposition is deemed to have become extinct.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the Defendant's defense on the premise that the first disposition, which is the increase and decrease disposition, was absorption and extinction, and only the third disposition is the object of the lawsuit in this case, is acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding of legal principles as to the increase and decrease disposition, incomplete deliberation, or omission of judgment. The precedents to the same purport need not be changed. The ground of appeal on this part is not acceptable

3. As to the ground of appeal concerning the third disposition is null and void

When the Defendant, who is a tax authority, misleads the Defendant that the secondary disposition of this case was effective and led to the misunderstanding that the amount determined internally and externally does not coincide with the amount indicated externally, it can be said that there was an error in the process of the said taxation. However, it is not always null and void on the ground that the tax disposition was due to an error (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu220, Jul. 23, 1985). However, in a case where a cause of illegality occurs as a result of a mistake in the procedure and content of the taxation by mistake, it can be deemed that the invalidation or revocation may be made according to the degree of illegality.

However, in order for the taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient, and the defect is significant and obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation in question, shall be examined as a teleological and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu419, Jul. 23, 1985; 90Nu10862, Nov. 27, 1990). The third disposition in this case is not a corrective disposition in cases where there is no object of correction, but a decision of the previous tax amount, which serves as the basis for the calculation of the corrected tax amount among the second dispositions that do not exist in force at the time, is merely a matter of internal nature of the administrative agency and it cannot be objectively deemed that such error is a defect is objectively apparent. Thus, the third disposition in this case by the defendant cannot be deemed null and void.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to taxation by mistake, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment. This part of the grounds for appeal is not accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)