1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the main text of Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that “In cases where a taxpayer has overpaid or erroneously paid the amount paid as a national tax, additional dues or disposition fee for arrears, or there is any amount of tax to be refunded under the tax-related Acts, the head of a tax office shall immediately determine

Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning national tax refund declares the legal doctrine that the immediate return of a national refund without waiting for a taxpayer’s application for refund, in a case where any erroneous payment, the existence and scope of which have already been determined as unjust enrichment, is consistent with the justice and fairness. Thus, the amount of erroneous payment, the existence and scope of which have already been determined, may be claimed as a civil lawsuit claiming a return

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29918 Decided April 23, 2009, etc.). In this case where the Plaintiff seeks the return of unjust enrichment on the premise that the amount of tax paid under the Plaintiff’s name constitutes the amount of erroneous payment, the lower court is justifiable to regard it as the subject of civil litigation and make a decision on the merits. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the form of

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal differs from this case, and thus it is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(a) there is only the title to the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation, and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs;