부과제척기간이 끝난 후 판결이 확정된 때 경정이나 그 밖에 필요한 처분을 할 수 있는 범위

The taxable person may impose a taxable disposition at any time before the end of the period for excluding assessment. The taxpayer may file a lawsuit claiming that the disposition is illegal. When a judgment such as canceling the disposition or confirming that the disposition was invalid has been concluded, the taxable person may try to impose a taxable disposition again with other reasons for disposition. If a long time has passed while proceeding with the lawsuit and the period for excluding assessment has already ended, it cannot be disposed of again. This is the result of the lawsuit, even though it could have been disposed of originally. To prevent such results, the taxable person must come up with measures such as taxing for various reasons in advance. However, it is not desirable for both the taxable person and the taxpayer to tax widely in advance for fear of the future. For this reason, even if the judgment is concluded after period for excluding assessment, correction or other necessary disposition should be carried out within a certain period. This article presents a standard to determine the scope of disposition’s recognition range. And this article contemplates how to interpret the current laws and regulations in light of that standard. Furthermore, this article examines whether the current laws and regulations are well-made to meet this standard and suggests legislative alternatives. If a judgment such as canceling the taxation disposition or confirming that the taxation disposition’s ineffectiveness after the period for excluding assessment, the taxation disposition can be re-disposed only within the scope of the facts based on the actual reason for the disposition in the judgment. Dispositions are made based on facts, which are the actions of subject of rights or cases. The reasons for disposition that could have been put forward in the facts that were the basis for the original taxation disposition should be put forward later. For this reason, if the basic facts are the same, the reason for disposition can be added or changed until the factual hearing is concluded. The scope should not be different just because the judgment is concluded. If there are still potential reasons for disposition that could have been put forward in the facts, which were not actually put forward in the original taxation disposition, it cannot be said that the dispute over the facts is completely over. At this time, the concept of a unit of taxation should not be brought up. The taxpayer, tax item, and tax period are determined on the basis of legally evaluated basic facts. If the taxpayer, tax item, and tax period are the same, it can be said that the unit of taxation is the same. However, this is only the result of the post-mortem judgment. The Supreme Court said that taxation disposition with different taxpayers, tax items, and taxable periods cannot be performed. The current laws and regulations were also influenced by the Supreme Court judgment. It is a matter of determination for extent of taxation. However, the standard should be basic facts, not a unit of taxation. Depending on the scope of the binding force or effect of res judicata of the concluded judgment, the disposition after the judgment may or may not be contrary to the binding force or effect of res judicata. The Supreme Court says that in a lawsuit against taxation, binding force or effect of res judicata only affects the reasons for disposition actually contested in the concluded judgment. If so, it is possible to dispose of wide range of taxation as long as it is not a reason for disposition that has actually been contested in the judgment concluded. On the contrary, if it is determined whether it is a single disposition based on basic facts or unit of taxation, even if it is a taxable disposition based on a reason for disposition different from the original disposition, it may be contrary to binding force or effect of res judicata. In this case, it should be considered that the regulations that allow taxation after the period for excluding assessment to work without binding force or effect of res judicata.