2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that when an enterprise is opened to the public to support the sound development of the capital market through the expansion of supply of superior stocks, re-evaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act may be conducted even if it does not meet the requirements for re-evaluation under the same Act, and Article 56-2 is newly established as of November 28, 1987 under the amended Act by Act No. 3939 of Nov. 28, 1987, and under Article 88(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, a corporation which first intends to list stocks at the Korea Stock Exchange under the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act may re-evaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act as of the first day of every month, notwithstanding Articles 4 and 38 of the Assets Revaluation Act: Provided, That where a re-evaluation corporation fails to list stocks at the Korea Stock Exchange within 2 years from the date of re-evaluation, the re-evaluation already conducted shall not be regarded as a re-evaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act. Meanwhile, according to Article 15(1) of the Assets Revaluation Act, the income amount of each business year after the revaluation.

B. The Plaintiff, a non-listed corporation established on April 24, 1957 and engaged in the insurance business, etc. under the Insurance Business Act, conducted a revaluation of assets on the premise of stock listing pursuant to Article 56-2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same) on February 1, 1990, and filed a revaluation report by calculating the revaluation spread and revaluation amount on June 30, 1990 (hereinafter “reassessment of this case”).

C. On October 22, 1990, the defendant applied Articles 9 and 12 of the Assets Revaluation Act (amended by Act No. 5531 of Apr. 10, 1998), etc., and imposed revaluation tax of KRW 9,051,273,560 (hereinafter referred to as "the revaluation tax of this case") on the plaintiff as revaluation rate of KRW 301,709,118,748 (hereinafter referred to as "the revaluation spread of this case") (hereinafter referred to as "the revaluation tax of this case"), and the plaintiff paid revaluation tax of this case on June 30, 1990, while the plaintiff paid revaluation tax of this case on June 30, 199, the difference of revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act did not include the revaluation spread in gross income pursuant to Article 15 (l) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act. In addition, the plaintiff did not pay the revaluation spread of this case to the special contractor on April 13, 1999.

D. After that, the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, which provide for special cases of revaluation when a company is open to the public, have been amended several times as shown in attached Table 2, and the listing period of stocks has been finally extended until December 31, 2003, but the Plaintiff did not list stocks on the Korea Stock Exchange by December 31, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “stock listing”).

E. On January 16, 2004, the defendant did not list shares by December 31, 2003, within the listing period, and paid 11,565,536,320 won to the plaintiff under Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17458, Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter the same). The defendant revoked ex officio the disposition imposing revaluation tax of this case on the ground that the revaluated cannot be seen as revaluated under the Assets Revaluation Act, and revoked the disposition imposing revaluation tax of this case, revoked revaluation tax of this case, national tax refund amounting to KRW 9,051,273,560,536,320 from the following day of the date of the revaluation tax of this case, and paid additional tax of this case to the plaintiff 1065,2984,298

F. Meanwhile, on January 16, 2004, the Defendant partially revoked the disposition of corporate tax for the business year from 1991 to 1994 by recognizing the special dividends paid by the Plaintiff to the contractor as losses, and paid 13,240,199,050 won for the revoked portion of corporate tax and additional dues for refund calculated from the day following the date of payment of each corporate tax (hereinafter referred to as “additional dues for revaluation tax and additional dues for corporate tax refund”) to the Plaintiff (i) KRW 24,805,735,370 in total (i.e., KRW 11,565,536,320 + KRW 13,240,199,050 in total).

G. On March 30, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a national tax trial with the National Tax Tribunal seeking revocation of the Defendant’s disposition of rectification of corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1989, Jan. 16, 2004. Accordingly, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the portion of the penalty tax of this case on April 20, 2005.

H. However, on March 22, 2006, the Ministry of Finance and Economy stated that the amount of additional dues for the instant case should be refunded as the tax policy-363 of the established rules of the Ministry of Finance and Economy on March 22, 2006. Accordingly, on May 19, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the instant case, such as attached Table 1, to set a full number of additional dues for the instant case to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A to Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

With respect to the initial date of the calculation of the additional payment on the refund of national taxes, Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "in cases of a national tax refund due to correction or cancellation of a return or imposition, which serves as the basis of the payment after erroneous payment, double payment, or payment, the date of payment." However, the additional payment on the refund of this case was made by the defendant ex officio cancellation of the imposition of the revaluation tax of this case due to the later reasons that the stocks are not listed after the payment of the revaluation tax of this case. Thus, the initial date of the additional payment on the refund of this case should be the

(2) Defendant

The disposition of this case to correct the payment of additional dues on the ground that the first day following the date of payment of revaluation tax of this case was erroneous for the following reasons.

(A) Article 52 Subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to cases where correction or revocation of a report or imposition is made on grounds of illegality in the initial report, payment, or imposition, and thus, Article 52 Subparag. 1 of the same Act applies to the additional refund of this case arising from cancellation

shall not be required.

(B) Rather, the fundamental cause for which the Defendant ex officio cancelled the disposition of revaluation tax of this case is due to the amendment of the relevant laws, such as the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which provides for special cases concerning revaluation at the time of disclosure of business, and the revaluation tax of assets ceases to be a taxable ground due to the amendment of the relevant laws and regulations. Thus, the additional dues of this case fall under the “national tax refund by the amendment of the Act which was made after lawful payment” under Article 52 subparagraph 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(C) The first imposition disposition of revaluation tax of the instant case was lawful without any defects, and there was no reason to pay in addition to additional dues calculated from the day after the date of payment of revaluation tax of the instant case, since the Defendant’s possession of revaluated tax paid until the Plaintiff’s stock listing was due to legal grounds for payment of national tax refund.

(D) Since the corporate tax, etc. and the revaluation tax are closely related to the refund of the amount of the revaluation tax paid when imposing the corporate tax, etc. reduced or exempted on the same asset revaluation difference, if the unpaid additional tax, etc. cannot be collected by December 31, 2003, it is natural that additional dues should not be imposed for the period during which additional tax, such as corporate tax, should not be collected even in refunding the amount of the revaluation tax already paid on the same asset revaluation difference.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

(1) According to the provisions of Articles 51(1) and 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of a tax office shall immediately determine the amount of the national tax refund when there is an erroneous payment, excess payment, or refund of the amount of the national tax paid by a taxpayer as a national tax, additional dues, or disposition fee for arrears. In addition, the amount of the erroneous payment is to be added thereto when determining the amount of the national tax refund according to the legal regular calculation day and interest rate, and when the refund of the national tax is appropriated or refunded. The amount of the erroneous payment refers to the amount of the tax paid or collected without filing a return (in the case of a tax return) or a disposition of imposition (in the case of a tax imposition), which is the basis of the payment or collection, or null and void. The amount of the excessive payment means the amount of the tax reduced wholly or partially by revocation or correction, but the amount of the tax refund becomes final and conclusive at the time when the national tax refund was returned in whole or in part by other tax laws.

(2) However, Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the date following the date of initial return on the refund of national taxes shall be the day following the day when the refund is made in case of a national tax refund due to erroneous payment, double payment, or correction or cancellation of the return or imposition that forms the basis of the relevant payment after payment, ② the day following the day when the refund is made in case of a national tax refund due to the reduction or exemption of national taxes paid lawfully (subparagraph 1); ③ the day following the day when the refund is made in case of a national tax refund due to the amendment of Acts after lawful payment (subparagraph 3); and ④ the day following the day when the refund is made in case of a refund due to erroneous return or correction of the amount of refund tax under the Income Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, the Individual Consumption Tax Act, the Traffic, Energy and Environment Tax Act, or the Liquor Tax Act, or the day after the date when the return is made (where the date of report is before the statutory filing date, the statutory filing date of the refund).

(3) Therefore, the initial date of the additional refund due to the revocation of the disposition of revaluation tax in this case shall be determined by any of the subparagraphs of Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it is reasonable to set the additional refund pursuant to Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the same Act for the following reasons.

First, the revaluation of this case does not constitute a revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act retroactively to the time of revaluation, although it is not deemed that there was no act itself due to the Plaintiff’s stock listing, and as a result, the disposition of revaluation tax of this case became unlawful from the beginning, and the Defendant revoked it ex officio for the same reason. As such, the national tax refund of this case constitutes a national tax refund due to correction or cancellation of the return or imposition, which served as the basis of the payment after the payment under Article 52 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, i.e., the excess amount of the national tax refund as mentioned above, i., the refund of national tax refund of this case. This is true even if the Defendant, after the Plaintiff’s stock listing, deemed the revaluation of this case as the gross income for the 1989 business year where the revaluation of this case was invalidated, not for the business

Second, as seen above, Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes classifys the initial date of additional dues as five points. Among them, under the premise of special circumstances, Article 3, 5, and 7 should be determined on the basis of the base date of additional dues for refund pursuant to subparagraph 1 or 6. The national tax refund of this case is due to the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s non-listed of stocks by the due date prescribed by the law, not due to the amendment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and does not constitute subparagraph 5 (Article 56-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, even if the amendment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and the former Enforcement Decree thereof, even if the Plaintiff did not list stocks within two years from the revaluation date prescribed by the proviso of Article 56-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, the revocation of the imposition disposition of revaluation tax of this case and the partial revocation of the disposition of corporate tax for the business year.

Third, additional dues on national tax refund is equivalent to the additional dues system for taxpayers in arrears, as the State reimburses the statutory interest and the amount equivalent to the national tax refund (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da60767, Jan. 11, 2002). On the other hand, in cases where taxpayers violate various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in principle, under the conditions as prescribed by the Act, for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, additional dues under the tax law can be imposed separately if the requirements for imposing additional taxes are met, and the taxpayer’s intentional intent and negligence is not considered separately. However, Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006, which provides that the taxpayer is not obliged to pay additional taxes under the latter part of Article 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that if there is any justifiable reason for the latter to do so before the amendment of the Framework Act provides that it is unreasonable.

Fourth, the national tax refund constitutes a “illegal profit” which is received or held by the State without any legal cause even though the tax liability existed or ceased to exist from the beginning, and additional dues on refund claims and obligations have the nature of legal interest interest rate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da60767, etc.). Therefore, under the legislative theory, the initial date of national tax refund is different depending on whether the national tax refund is a beneficiary’s intent or bad faith in accordance with the legal principles of unjust enrichment under the Civil Act, or where it is deemed that there is a cause attributable to the tax authority like foreign legislation, and where the taxpayer is deemed to be a cause attributable to the taxpayer, it is desirable that the tax authority should add additional dues on refund from the date following the due date in the case of the former, and from the date when the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of the national tax refund. However, Article 52 of the current Framework Act on National Taxes does not stipulate it separately. Thus, even if the initial date of imposition or correction after payment under Article 52 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act can only be interpreted as one of the Framework Act. 21.

(4) Ultimately, a disposition imposing a different purport is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified, so it is judged the same as the order.