Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
A tax audit prompted by a prosecution referral as a prohibited re-audit
Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2025, 2023Du38998 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 종합소득세부과처분등취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where A's 2011 global income tax and value-added tax had already been audited three times, was a further audit by the regional tax office, prompted by a prosecution referral, a re-audit prohibited by Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes?
Holding
It was. The Supreme Court accepted the appellate finding that the audit prompted by the prosecution referral covered the same tax items and the same tax period as each of the three earlier audits, so that Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes prohibited it in principle. It also accepted that none of the exceptions permitting a re-audit applied, and dismissed the defendants' appeals.
Points at issue, verbatim
검찰의 고발의뢰로 진행한 세무조사는 그 전에 있었던 조사 모두와의 관계에서 같은 세목 및 같은 과세기간에 대하여 이루어진 것으로서 구 국세기본법 제81조의4 제2항에 따라 원칙적으로 금지되는 재조사에 해당하고, 재조사가 허용되는 예외적 사유에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
the tax investigation conducted upon the referral for criminal complaint by the prosecutors, in its relationship with all of the preceding investigations, was conducted with respect to the same tax types and the same taxable period, and thus constituted a reinvestigation that is prohibited in principle under Article 81-4 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and did not fall under any exceptional grounds on which a reinvestigation is permitted
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
재조사가 허용되는 예외적 사유에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
the court below was affirmed in holding that the reinvestigation did not fall under any exceptional grounds on which a reinvestigation is permitted
Factors
- 이미 3차례에 걸쳐 세무조사가 이루어졌는데
- 검찰의 고발의뢰로 관할 지방국세청장이 실시한 갑에 대한 세무조사
- 그 전에 있었던 조사 모두와의 관계에서 같은 세목 및 같은 과세기간에 대하여 이루어진 것으로서
- 재조사가 허용되는 예외적 사유에 해당하지 않는다고
Unofficial English translation
• tax investigations had already been conducted three times
• the tax investigation of A conducted by the competent regional tax office commissioner upon a referral for criminal complaint by the prosecutors
• in its relationship with all of the preceding investigations, was conducted with respect to the same tax types and the same taxable period
• did not fall under any exceptional grounds on which a reinvestigation is permitted
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a prosecution referral arrives with new material, how clear must that material be before a fourth audit of the same period falls within an exception?
Material on tax evasion that the three earlier audits could not have used, if it appears in the record, would reopen the exception question. Any amendment to Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 63-2 of its former Enforcement Decree also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 7 March 2023 (2021Nu37801), held that the audit covered the same tax items and tax period as the first, second and third audits and was therefore a re-audit prohibited in principle. It rejected the defendants' argument that the audit fell within an exception: clear material indicating tax evasion under Article 81-4(2)(i) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, or, under the authority of Article 81-4(2)(vii), a re-audit to process tax materials or clear material indicating a tax offence under Article 2(i) of the Tax Offences and Punishment Procedure Act, as provided in Article 63-2(ii) and (iii) of the former Enforcement Decree.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the provisions, the case law and the record, it held that the court below had neither misunderstood the law on the exceptions permitting a re-audit nor failed to examine what it needed to, and the Justices unanimously dismissed all the defendants' appeals, with the appeal costs on the defendants.
Distinguishing conditions
- An audit that differs from the earlier audits in tax item or tax period, so that it is not a second audit of the same item and the same period.
- A re-audit backed by clear material indicating tax evasion or a tax offence, or carried out to process tax materials, where the facts bring it within one of the exceptions the court below examined.
Record verification notes
List every earlier audit of the same taxpayer with its tax items and tax periods, and set the later audit against each one, since the Court accepted a finding made against all three. Then match the stated reason for the later audit, here a prosecution referral, with the wording of the exception the tax authority relies on, and confirm which version of the Act and the Decree was in force on the audit date, because the Court applied Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 of its former Enforcement Decree.
From the official text
Points at issue
갑의 2011년 귀속 종합소득세 및 부가가치세에 대하여 이미 3차례에 걸쳐 세무조사가 이루어졌는데, 이후 검찰의 고발의뢰로 관할 지방국세청장이 실시한 갑에 대한 세무조사 결과에 따라 관할 세무서장이 종합소득세 및 부가가치세를 증액경정 한 사안에서, 검찰의 고발의뢰로 진행한 세무조사는 그 전에 있었던 조사 모두와의 관계에서 같은 세목 및 같은 과세기간에 대하여 이루어진 것으로서 구 국세기본법 제81조의4 제2항에 따라 원칙적으로 금지되는 재조사에 해당하고, 재조사가 허용되는 예외적 사유에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In a case where tax investigations had already been conducted three times with respect to A's comprehensive income tax and value-added tax for the taxable year 2011, and, thereafter, the competent district tax office commissioner reassessed and increased A's comprehensive income tax and value-added tax based on the results of a tax investigation of A conducted by the competent regional tax office commissioner upon a referral for criminal complaint by the prosecutors, this is a case in which the court below was affirmed in holding that the tax investigation conducted upon the referral for criminal complaint by the prosecutors, in its relationship with all of the preceding investigations, was conducted with respect to the same tax types and the same taxable period, and thus constituted a reinvestigation that is prohibited in principle under Article 81-4 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and did not fall under any exceptional grounds on which a reinvestigation is permitted
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
구 국세기본법(2018. 12. 31. 법률 제16097호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제81조의4 제2항, 구 국세기본법 시행령(2019. 2. 12. 대통령령 제29534호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제63조의2
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger