The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The court below's decision is justified in rejecting the defendant's main defense of safety based on the judgment that the plaintiff's claim for the return of the tax paid to the defendant according to the tax disposition based on the premise that the plaintiff has significant and obvious defects in the tax disposition is the object of civil procedure, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, there

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 86 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that where the head of a tax office can write off a disposition for arrears, when the amount appropriated to the delinquent amount falls short of such delinquent amount (subparagraph 1), when the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes falls short of such amount (subparagraph 2), when the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes is completed (subparagraph 3), and when it is deemed that there is no possibility of collection under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (subparagraph 4), and where the head of a tax office finds the existence of other seizable assets at the time of the disposition for arrears, he shall cancel the disposition for arrears without delay. Thus, where another asset which could have been seized at the time of the disposition for arrears is discovered, the head of a tax office must cancel the disposition for arrears, and the head of a tax office cannot cancel the disposition for arrears even if the taxpayer newly acquired the asset after the disposition for arrears was cancelled, and it is difficult to view that there is no other special reason to cancel the disposition for arrears as at the time of the disposition for arrears, notwithstanding the revocation of the disposition for arrears.

B. Examining the facts found by the court below or the first instance court in comparison with the records, it did not cancel the disposal of deficit for the reason that there was a reason as stipulated in Article 86(2) of the National Tax Collection Act (the time it is discovered that there was another property which can be seized at the time of the disposal of deficit for the non-party company, the taxpayer) after the disposal of deficit in this case, but it was judged that the real estate which was seized at the time of the initial disposal of deficit in this case, did not have a possibility of collecting the delinquent amount, and it was erroneous that there was a reason for the disposal of deficit falling under any of subparagraphs of paragraph (1). However, it was found that the disposal of deficit in this case was cancelled on the ground that it was found that there was

If the reasons and circumstances leading up to the cancellation of the disposition on deficits in this case are the same, it cannot be concluded that the disposition on deficits in this case was an administrative disposition with a significant and obvious defect without any grounds for cancellation of the disposition on deficits in Article 86 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, and the cancellation of the disposition on deficits in this case cannot be viewed as a defective disposition on the sole basis of the fact that the director of the Central Tax Office revokes the disposition on deficits in this case without any grounds for cancellation of the disposition on deficits in this case.

C. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was a disposition for invalidation with a grave and apparent defect solely on the ground that the cancellation of the disposition of this case was made without a reason for cancellation of the disposition of this case's loss without a reason for cancellation of the disposition of this case's loss, and that the tax amount in arrears paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff was an unjust enrichment acquired without a legal reason due to the plaintiff's loss, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposition of this case's loss under the National Tax Collection Act, cancellation of the disposition of this case's loss and the cancellation of the disposition of this case's defect, and it is clear that this error affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination as to whether there is a defect in the disposition on deficits in this case as alleged by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)