[1] Where a disposition agency rendered a decision of reduction based on a decision of national tax adjudication, the subject of appeal

[2] Whether the procedure is strict in the procedure of administrative appeal procedure (negative)

[3] Character of Article 80(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act concerning the disposition and reporting deadline

[1] If a correction disposition subsequent to a disposition of increase is made, the initial disposition shall lose its independent existence value by absorbing it as a correction disposition, and if a correction disposition again reduces it thereafter, it shall not be a separate tax disposition from the above correction disposition, but the substance of the correction disposition shall have the favorable effect on the taxpayer who is the taxpayer to whom part of the amount of tax is revoked. Therefore, in a case where the part remaining without being revoked is alleged to be illegal, the object of the appeal suit shall remain without being revoked by the correction of the amount of tax reduction, and the determination of the amount of tax reduction shall not be subject to appeal litigation. This legal doctrine applies to the case where the National Tax Tribunal partially accepted a request for a judgment of increase and presented the correction standard without specifying the legitimate amount of tax, so that the administrative agency concerned may determine the specific tax base and amount of tax by presenting the correction standard, and thus, the administrative agency shall have a separate means of litigation, barring special circumstances.

[2] The principle of administrative appeals, in light of the characteristics, expertise, etc. of administrative acts, means that administrative agencies are given an opportunity to reconsider and correct themselves, so long as there are no special provisions in law, it is not required to require the citizens to take excessively strict procedures beyond the required scope, but it is not even a tax administrative litigation.

[3] Article 80(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that when a decision on a request for adjudgment has been made, the administrative agency concerned shall immediately make the necessary disposition in accordance with the purport of the decision and report the result thereof to the Director of the National Tax Tribunal. However, inasmuch as matters relating to the disposition and the deadline for report are merely a provision of lessons and the taxpayer are given an opportunity to appeal a decision on adjudication, even if the tax authority takes full account of the principle of the application of the above principle, it shall not be deemed that the decision on the reduction delayed after the deadline for filing a lawsuit is a new disposition or that the decision on the reduction is a result of deprivation of the opportunity to appeal a decision on the adjudication, compared with the cases where the

[1] Articles 55, 56, and 65 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 80 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Nu253 delivered on March 9, 1982 (Gong1982, 438), Supreme Court Decision 85Nu599 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 353), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu391 delivered on September 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2555), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu989 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong194, 110), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu351 delivered on August 11, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3139) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu254 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1984) / [31985] Supreme Court Decision 198Nu258485 delivered on September 16, 1986

Plaintiff

The superintendent of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu35123 delivered on April 14, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a correction disposition is made after a tax disposition has been issued, the original disposition shall lose its independent existence value by absorbing it in the correction disposition, and where a new correction disposition is made thereafter, the original disposition shall be extinguished by losing its independent existence value, and it shall not be a separate tax disposition from the above correction disposition, but its substance shall be a disposition that changes the above adjustment disposition and has the favorable effect on the taxpayer who is the taxpayer who is the taxpayer to whom part of the amount of tax is revoked. Thus, where a new correction disposition that has not yet been revoked is asserted against the illegality of the remaining portion, the object of the appeal shall be the remaining part without being revoked by the decision of re-determination of reduction from among the above adjustment disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu599, Dec. 22, 1987; 93Nu9989, Nov. 9, 1993; 95Nu35151, Aug. 11, 1995).

The above legal principle applies likewise to the case where the National Tax Tribunal partially cites the request for a judgment and presented a correction standard without clearly cancelling the legitimate tax amount and allowing the relevant administrative agency to determine the specific tax base and amount of tax, barring any special circumstance where the relevant administrative agency decided to determine the amount of tax in accordance with the purport of the decision of the adjudication or there is an illegal reason in the decision itself (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu253 delivered on March 9, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 91Nu391 delivered on September 13, 191).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on February 6, 1992, the court below issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 13,292,150 and KRW 2,215,350 with respect to the plaintiff on August 4, 1992, after deducting the already paid amount of inheritance tax from KRW 192,139,680 with respect to the plaintiff on August 4, 1992, and issued a disposition of correction to increase the tax base by KRW 32,023,280 with respect to the above disposition of correction. The plaintiff filed an objection against the above disposition of increase, and filed a request for examination and adjudgment on March 23, 1993 with regard to the above disposition of increase to KRW 192,139,60 and KRW 32,280 with respect to the defense tax base and amount of inheritance tax, within the period of 90 days with respect to the above disposition of increase to KRW 190,500 with respect to the tax base and amount of inheritance tax amount of KRW 294.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that the ground for appeal against the ruling of correction of increase in the inherited property on August 4, 1992, ① did not deduct the obligation of collateral security established in the inherited property, ② applied the general distribution rate of 3.74 times without applying one special distribution rate, even though inherited property is located in the military facility protection zone, ③ the assessment of inherited property was not made at the time of inheritance, and was made at the time of imposition. The order of the National Tax Tribunal's determination is that "the disposition of the inheritance tax of 192,139,680 won and the defense tax of 32,023,280 won, notified by the head of the same tax office to the claimant on August 4, 1992, is that the assessment of the inheritance property at the time of commencement of inheritance (as of April 2, 190) and the assessment of the value of the inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance (as of April 22, 199) constitutes an assessment of the standard market price and the land within the jurisdiction.

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion that there is an illegal ground for the method of applying the rate in a request for a trial against the National Tax Tribunal shall be deemed to have been rejected in the decision, and when the defendant makes a decision for correction of reduction on September 2, 1993, it cannot be deemed a new disposition of imposition not complying with the decision of the National Tax Tribunal on the ground that the plaintiff applied the general multiple factor alleged as an unlawful ground in the lawsuit in this case, and the above decision of correction cannot be deemed to be a new disposition of imposition not complying with the decision of the National Tax Tribunal. The plaintiff argues that the purport of accepting the plaintiff's argument that the meaning of the "current situation at the time of commencement of inheritance" in the

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

3. In addition, if the defendant received a written decision from the National Tax Tribunal on March 23, 1993 pursuant to Article 80(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, he could immediately file a lawsuit without extending the time limit for filing a lawsuit against the decision, and if he did not comply with the decision of the National Tax Tribunal, the plaintiff was bound to be aware of it as a new disposition for imposition. Thus, the plaintiff should be allowed to be dissatisfied with the decision of the National Tax Tribunal on March 23, 1993.

Unless otherwise expressly provided for in law, the principle of pre-determination of administrative appeals does not require the citizens to take excessively strict procedures in light of the characteristics, expertise, etc. of administrative acts, so long as administrative agencies are given an opportunity for inventory and correction (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu254 delivered on September 9, 1986, and Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4868 delivered on March 28, 195).

However, in this case, since the violation of the method of applying the multiple rates asserted by the plaintiff as the ground for appeal was not accepted in the adjudication decision, the plaintiff should have filed an administrative litigation within the lawful period of lawsuit from the time when he was served with the decision. If the plaintiff did not institute an administrative litigation by deeming that the above decision was the acceptance of the above argument, it should be based on the plaintiff's cause attributable to the plaintiff.

Article 80(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that when a decision on a request for adjudgment has been made, the administrative agency concerned shall immediately make the necessary disposition in accordance with the purport of the decision and report the result thereof to the Director of the National Tax Tribunal. However, in this case, as seen above, as long as the opportunity for the plaintiff to appeal against the decision on the administrative appeal is given, the above principle of application of the principle of administrative appeal transfer, even if the defendant sufficiently takes account of the opportunity for the plaintiff to appeal against the decision on the administrative appeal, it shall not be said that the defendant is a new disposition to impose the decision on the decision on the reduction delayed after the filing period or that the defendant is deprived of the opportunity to appeal the decision on the decision in comparison with the case prior to the filing period. The argument on this point is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)