2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,625,795,023 won with 5% interest per annum from February 25, 2004 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

(a) Circumstances and details of the disposition;

(i) [Inheritance Report]

임○○(이하 망인이라 한다)가 1993. 11. 13. 사망하였는데 그 상속인으로는 처인 정○○, 자녀들인 원고, 임●●, 임◇◇, 임△△, 임■■, 임□□가 있었다. 정○○이 상속인들을 대표하여 1994. 5. 12. ○○세무서에 상속세과세표준을 4,073,668,000원으로 하여 산출한 상속세 671,062,860원을 신고하였는데, 그 중 170,000,000원은 자진납부하고, 나머지 세액에 대하여는 연부연납을 신청 하였다.

(ii) [Initial Disposition]

The head of ○○○ Tax Office determined the total amount of tax to KRW 3,325,402,211 by correcting the wrong parts of the inheritor’s return, and then determined the total amount of tax to KRW 3,155,402,211, which is the place of voluntary payment less KRW 170,000,000, the total amount of tax to be notified was 3,155,402,211. On August 1, 1996 (the date of service of the notice is August 16, 1996), the Plaintiff, etc. specified the amount of tax to be imposed by heir by specifying the amount of tax to be imposed by heir (hereinafter “the initial disposition of this case”). The total amount of tax to be imposed by heir was 170,00,000,000,000, which was voluntarily paid by the heir when the heir filed an inheritance tax return, and the total amount of tax to be imposed by the heir was 300,000,00.

(iii) [The First Correction]

In an objection filed by the plaintiff et al. against the above disposition, the director of ○○ Tax Office partially accepted it, and the director of ○○ Tax Office corrected 27,724,094 out of the total notified tax amount (so, the total notified tax amount became KRW 3,127,678,117) on December 12, 1996, but it did not specify how much the amount of tax to be reduced by each heir was reduced, and did not notify the plaintiff et al. thereof.

(iv) [Secondary Correction Measures]

On the premise of the first correction on May 4, 1998, the head of ○○○ Tax Office revised the disposition to increase the tax amount of KRW 21,489,30 on the ground that the taxpayer was erroneous in the above correction (the total notified tax amount became KRW 3,149,167,417 on the premise that the total tax amount was increased. However, the difference between the notified tax amount due to the first correction and the original disposition was increased rather than the first correction, but the amount reduced compared with the original disposition) and imposed the Plaintiff, etc. on the ground that only the difference between the notified tax amount due to the first correction and the tax amount due to the first correction was specified by the heir as the second correction of the attached specifications. At that time, the tax payment notice of the standardized tax amount was issued, not the total tax amount to be paid, but the increased tax amount on the premise of the first correction, i.e., the total tax amount to be paid by each heir (the total tax amount to be paid by each heir) was written on the premise that the additional tax amount notified separately notified by each heir’s.

(v) [Third Correction Measure]

After all, the national tax appeal filed by the plaintiff et al. partially accepted the national tax appeal, and the head of ○○ Tax Office re- corrected the total notified tax amount to KRW 2,323,979,105 on September 30, 1998, and did not notify it. On February 23, 2000, he notified the plaintiff et al. of the increased and decreased tax amount by inheritor, as stated in the third correction of the attached statement.

The third correction disposition was reduced by considering the total amount of notified tax, but the total amount of tax imposed by each heir was reduced by 0 won, and the amount of tax imposed by each heir was reduced by 0 won, which was partially reduced to YO, and the remaining inheritors were increased (the amount of tax notified to the plaintiff was 0 won). (The amount of tax notified to the plaintiff was calculated by including the property donated from the deceased within a certain period prior to the commencement of inheritance in the inherited property, and then the inheritance tax was imposed by deducting the amount of gift tax imposed by the amount of gift tax imposed on the calculated amount of inheritance, and the remaining amount was imposed on the plaintiff. However, the amount of tax imposed on the plaintiff was due to the increase

In addition, the notice of tax payment of a standardized form was not issued at the time of the notice of the third correction disposition, but the public document of "the tax base of inheritance tax and the calculation statement of the amount of tax", "the inheritance tax and the list of persons liable for joint tax payment to be paid by the heir or testamentary donee", and "the list of persons liable for joint and several tax payment" are attached to the public document of "the tax base of inheritance tax and the amount of tax". The "the calculation statement of the tax base of inheritance tax and the amount of tax" stated the value of the inherited property, mutual aid money, taxable value, deductible amount, tax amount, standard amount of deduction, tax credit amount, total amount of tax to be paid by each heir or testamentary donee," and the "list of persons liable for tax payment and joint and several tax payment to be paid by each heir or testamentary donee" stated the share in possession of inherited property by each heir and the amount of tax imposed by each heir calculated by the above total amount of tax to be paid by the above share.

6) [The fourth-7 Supplementary Measure]

Since then, on March 11, 2002, the head of ○○ Tax Office issued the fourth corrective disposition with the purport of increasing KRW 1,481,134,926 (the total amount of tax notified to the Plaintiff became KRW 3,805,114,031) based on the total amount of tax notified to the Plaintiff on March 11, 200, and the individual amount of tax imposed on each inheritor was significantly increased from KRW 0 to KRW 1,561,059,866, and the amount of tax imposed on each inheritor was partially reduced from KRW 1,561,05,86, and the amount of tax imposed on each inheritor was partially reduced. The specific details are as stated in the separate corrective statement. After that, the tax authority made several corrective measures and made seven corrective measures. The content of individual amount of tax imposed on the Plaintiff was as stated in the separate corrective statement (the individual amount of tax imposed on the Plaintiff was reduced to KRW 4,00,000).

7) [Institution of Administrative Litigation by the Plaintiff]

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the 7th corrective disposition and filed an administrative litigation, and the lawsuit is currently pending.

(b) Payment status of inheritance tax;

1) According to the above disposition, the heir, including the Plaintiff, voluntarily paid inheritance tax and additional dues (including increased additional dues; hereinafter the same shall apply) or the tax authorities collected them through the delinquent procedure, etc., and the entire amount of the tax determined in the final disposition (7th corrective disposition) was paid. The specific payment and collection details are as shown in the attached inheritance tax payment details (However, the above details do not include KRW 170,000,000, which were voluntarily paid by the heir upon filing the initial return of inheritance tax).

2) The amount paid until November 30, 2001, prior to the fourth corrective disposition, is KRW 3,283,437,140 (except for the amount of voluntary payment at the time of filing an inheritance tax return). The amount paid out of the amount is KRW 2,324,018,590, and the amount paid out of additional dues is KRW 959,418,550, and the total amount was paid based on the initial disposition, and the additional dues was also calculated based on August 31, 1996, which was notified at the time of the initial disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (Additional Number omitted), Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 10 (each number omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the primary cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The amount (including additional dues) paid by November 30, 2001 is all paid or collected on the basis of the assumption that the initial disposition is valid.

2) Of the above paid amounts, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s inherent tax liability (the amount of inheritance tax imposed on the Plaintiff) based on the Plaintiff’s inherent share in the final disposition (the amount of inheritance tax imposed on the Plaintiff) is paid KRW 1,887,976,355 as the Plaintiff’s implementation of the disposition of inheritance tax (the implementation of the disposition of inheritance tax liability).

3) However, at the time of the third correction disposition, the amount imposed on the Plaintiff was notified as zero won, and this means that the previous disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff was revoked in full.

4) As such, when the imposition of inheritance tax against the Plaintiff was revoked due to the third correction disposition, the amount paid as a result of the implementation of the imposition disposition of inheritance tax against the Plaintiff out of the amount paid based on the original disposition became unlawful, i.e., the amount paid without any cause.

5) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the above unjust enrichment corresponding to the plaintiff's shares in inheritance and the additional refund on the refund of national tax accrued from each payment to the plaintiff.

6) After the third correction disposition, inheritance tax was imposed again on the Plaintiff on the ground of the fourth correction disposition. However, the obligation to return unjust enrichment already occurred due to the same disposition is not extinguished.

7) All inheritors are jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax and so-called joint and several tax liability. However, in order to impose or collect inheritance tax, it is necessary to impose or collect tax by a tax payment notice. However, in the case of a third correction disposition for which both a tax payment notice and a tax collection notice for the Plaintiff were revoked, it cannot be deemed that there was a legitimate disposition of inheritance tax and a tax collection disposition for the other inheritors due to the failure to issue a tax payment notice, and thus, there was no joint and several tax liability for the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff cannot be denied on the ground of joint and several tax liability.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The amount paid not later than November 30, 2001 (additional dues) is paid or collected on the basis of the assumption that the initial disposition is valid.

2) However, in the third correction disposition, the notice of the imposition amount on the Plaintiff is merely a notification that there is no additional amount of tax if it excludes the already paid tax amount, and it does not entirely cancel the imposition disposition of inheritance tax on the Plaintiff.

3) In inheritance tax, all inheritors are jointly and severally liable to pay the whole inheritance tax within the scope of inherited property, regardless of whether they have their own tax liability or not. Therefore, even if both the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax against Plaintiff was revoked due to the third correction, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the tax imposed on other inheritors within the scope of their inherited property, and the Defendant’s tax amount paid is both within the scope of their joint and several tax liability, and thus, it does not constitute unjust enrichment.

C. Determination

1) [The imposition of inheritance tax against the plaintiff is revoked in full due to the third correction disposition];

In the third correction disposition, the tax authority notified the Plaintiff to the effect that there is no additional tax amount to be imposed upon the Plaintiff, excluding the amount of tax voluntarily paid at the time of filing the inheritance tax return. Thus, it is clear that the previous disposition, i.e., the first disposition or the second correction disposition, and the cancellation notice on the previous disposition, i.e., the amount of tax imposed upon the Plaintiff as the first disposition or the second correction disposition. Therefore, in relation to this part, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the entire disposition of inheritance tax against the Plaintiff was revoked (However, if so, the entire amount of inheritance tax imposed on the Plaintiff is not revoked. This is because the Plaintiff’s heir, etc. voluntarily paid KRW 170,00,000 upon filing the return of inheritance tax, and thus, the notification was made only after deducting the amount of tax voluntarily paid from the total amount of tax determined upon the return of inheritance tax, and thus, even in the third correction disposition, the portion corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share in the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax amount still falls under the Plaintiff’s share in the amount of inheritance tax against the Plaintiff.

ii) [The plaintiff has a joint and several tax liability for inheritance tax imposed on other inheritors, and the already paid tax amount has been appropriated for the fulfillment of this liability]

A) Article 18 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same) applicable to this case provides that "he heir or testamentary donee is jointly and severally liable to pay the inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of the property that he/she received or is to receive." Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that "The liability of each heir for joint and several tax liability of inheritance under paragraph 1 is limited to his/her own property that he/she receives or is to receive." The Korean Inheritance Tax Act divides the method of taxation into the method of inheritance tax and the method of inheritance tax. As such, in the case of joint inheritance, the inheritance tax law takes the method of inheritance tax, which provides that the heir's tax liability belongs to co-ownership of inherited property, and Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the heir is jointly and severally liable to pay the total amount of inheritance tax calculated by the joint and several liability to pay the inheritance tax."

B) Unlike the case of gift tax, the joint and several liability for inheritance tax has characteristics as follows: (a) legal justification becomes final and conclusive when each co-inheritors’ own liability for payment of inheritance tax becomes final and conclusive (i.e., a separate disposition, etc. on joint and several liability for tax payment); and (b) the tax authority does not need to go through a separate procedure (an additional disposition, etc. on separate tax liability) for the determination of joint and several liability for tax payment. In general, a tax payment notice for inheritance tax on a co-inheritors enters the total tax amount to be paid in the tax payment notice and the basis for the calculation thereof; and (c) in the case of a method of delivery by attaching a detailed notice for each co-inheritors’s possession ratio of inherited property and the amount of inheritance tax to be paid by each co-inheritors, the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors indicated in the detailed notice for tax payment is the amount of tax imposed and collected by each co-inheritors on each co-inheritors (the total amount of tax paid by each co-inheritors on each co-inheritors).

C) In this case based on the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the disposition of the Plaintiff’s imposition was revoked in entirety and the Plaintiff’s inherent tax liability was extinguished, the Plaintiff still has a joint and several tax liability for the amount of the tax (total notified tax amount) within the scope of his/her inherited property (property received or to be received). Moreover, the Plaintiff’s payment or the Defendant’s collection is limited to the entire inheritance tax imposed on the inheritor within the scope of his/her inherited property, on the premise that the entire inheritor was within the scope of his/her inherited property, and did not separately pay or collect the entire amount of the inheritance tax imposed on the inheritor, on the premise that the entire inheritor was within the scope of his/her inherited property. Thus, notwithstanding the cancelled unique tax liability, the previous tax amount is naturally appropriated for the performance of the tax liability within the scope of his/her joint and several liability, and it does not have to be returned as unjust enrichment.

D) However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s payment of its own tax liability as the third correction disposition is within the scope of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff (including donated property within five years prior to the commencement of inheritance) and the value of the Plaintiff’s inherited property (including donated property within five years prior to the commencement of inheritance), the Plaintiff’s payment liability is within the scope of the inheritance tax amount (2,323,979,105 won, which is the total amount of inheritance tax notified at the time of the third correction disposition) of other inheritors jointly liable for tax payment by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no amount to be returned by the Defendant in relation thereto.

3) [The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no disposition to impose inheritance tax on other inheritors, which the Plaintiff’s joint and several tax liability does not exist.]

A) In relation to the Plaintiff’s joint and several tax liability, the Plaintiff did not issue a notice of tax payment at the time of the third correction disposition, and thus did not exist any other inheritor, and thus, the Plaintiff did not claim that there was no joint and several tax liability.

B) Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the head of a tax office, etc. shall notify the heir, testamentary donee or donee of the tax base and amount determined pursuant to Article 76 under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the head of a tax office notifies the tax base and amount of tax pursuant to the above Act, he shall notify the taxpayer of the tax base and amount of tax in the tax payment notice specifying the tax base and basis for calculation of the tax amount. However, according to the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the revised Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the tax base and amount of tax shall be determined in attached Form 13. However, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the head of a tax office or the head of a Si/Gun collects national taxes, he/she shall issue a notice stating the tax base and amount of tax, the tax base and amount of tax are specified in the tax payment notice, and the tax base and amount of tax are sufficiently stated in the form 97.2.

C) Therefore, in the instant case, even though a notice of tax payment is not issued in the form of a notice of tax payment, inasmuch as the tax base of “the tax base of inheritance tax and the calculation of the amount of tax,” and the document attached to “the list of the persons liable for joint and several tax payment” to be paid by each heir or testamentary donee, along with the tax base, indicate in detail the basis for calculation of the total amount of tax notice, and the amount of tax imposed by each heir, which is calculated accordingly, is specified and notified [Article 1. A. 5], and the imposition of individual inheritance tax (the corresponding portion of tax liability) on each heir shall be deemed final and conclusive upon the notice. As long as the imposition of taxes on each heir becomes final and conclusive, the separate final and conclusive procedure for the joint and several tax liability of the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, is not necessary to impose separate taxation for the imposition of taxes jointly and severally, and there is no need to initiate the collection procedure for other inheritors. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion to this purport is without merit.

4) [Lawsuit]

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary cause of claim is groundless.

3. As to the conjunctive cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) If the Plaintiff’s imposition of inheritance tax is limited to the assessment of inheritance tax, the fourth corrective disposition constitutes the rectification of increase.

2) Since a disposition to rectify an increase becomes subject to revocation of the entire previous disposition and new disposition of imposition, a disposition to collect additional dues based on the previous disposition of imposition also becomes void.

3) In the instant case, the entire amount paid by November 30, 2001 was paid on the basis of the initial disposition, and the entire amount of the additional dues paid was calculated and paid on the basis of the payment period notified at the time of the initial disposition.

4) However, due to the fourth correction disposition, the original disposition against the Plaintiff was extinguished.

5) Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 959,418,550, which is the additional amount, out of the amount paid up until November 30, 2001, and the part corresponding to the plaintiff's inheritance shares.

6) The Defendant asserted extinctive prescription on the premise that the secondary correction disposition is an increase in the amount, but the secondary correction disposition is not an increase in the amount, and as the Plaintiff asserted the invalidation of the collection disposition on the portion of the additional dues through administrative litigation, prescription was interrupted.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) Even in the case of an increase or decrease, the amount of tax initially determined in the original disposition is still maintained, and additional dues based on the deadline for payment determined in the initial disposition are also legitimate. This is also apparent in that the Framework Act on National Taxes amended by Act No. 6782 on December 18, 2002, Article 22-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 22-2(1) of the same Act provides that an increase in the amount of tax initially determined in accordance with the provisions of the tax-related Act does not affect the rights and obligations under this Act

2) Even if a surcharge based on the initial disposition is to be returned upon the rectification of the increase, the extinctive prescription has expired in the instant case for the following reasons.

A) In inheritance tax, whether the pertinent disposition is increased or corrected or corrected should be determined based on the amount of tax assessed by each heir, not on the total amount of tax notified.

B) However, in the instant case, since the first correction was not notified to the inheritor, it cannot be deemed that the disposition itself existed. At the time of the second correction, only the portion to be added was notified on the basis of the amount of tax reduced by the first correction. However, from the inheritor’s standpoint, the amount of tax notified as such could not be deemed to have been added to the amount of tax imposed on the original disposition due to lack of knowledge of the first correction. Accordingly, the second correction disposition constitutes an increase or decrease of the entire heir.

C) The Plaintiff’s additional dues were paid on the basis of the initial disposition, and as such, the period of payment set forth in the initial disposition becomes invalid due to the second corrective disposition, as seen above, based on the second corrective disposition, the portion already paid was entitled to seek the return on May 4, 1998, which was the time when the second corrective disposition was issued, by the inheritor, and the subsequent portion paid was paid in the state without any cause at the time of the payment. Accordingly, the heir could have claimed the return from the time of each payment.

D) However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 25, 2004, from that time, the part on which the right to claim return had already been created five years prior to that time, which is stipulated in Article 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, i.e., the entire portion paid prior to the second corrective disposition, and the portion paid after the second corrective disposition, the right to demand return had already expired for the portion paid prior to February 25, 199.

E) The institution of an administrative litigation, which the Plaintiff claims as a cause of interruption of extinctive prescription, cannot be a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription. Moreover, since the Plaintiff’s claim as to additional dues is dismissed or dismissed, it cannot be a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription.

C. Determination

(i) [Name of the original disposition at the time of revision of the amount of increase or decrease]

If the increase or decrease of the tax imposition disposition is made, the initial disposition becomes extinct due to the absorption of the increase or decrease disposition, and the payment period set in the initial disposition becomes null and void, and accordingly, the additional collection disposition premised on the initial payment period set in the initial disposition also becomes null and void retroactively to the act conducted without any cause (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13139, May 11, 199). Furthermore, Article 22-2(1) of the amended Framework Act on National Taxes only applies to the amended provision under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which was amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002, which was amended by Act No. 6782, and thus, it does not apply to the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is correct.

2) [whether the statute of limitations has expired]

(A) [The second correction disposition is an increase or decrease, and the previous payment portion is effective from the time of the second correction disposition, and thereafter the extinctive prescription for each right to claim a return from the time of each payment];

(1) In cases where co-inheritors exist, whether the inheritance tax rectification disposition is an increase or decrease or determination of the amount of reduction or exemption shall not be based on the total amount of tax notified to each co-inheritors, rather than on the basis of the individual amount of tax notified to pay to each co-inheritors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 220Du971, Feb. 13, 2004; 220Du971, Feb. 13, 2004; hereinafter the total amount of notified taxes merely are the amount of tax notified.) In addition, in cases where a notice of the determination of the imposition of inheritance tax or the determination of the determination of the determination of the determination of the determination of the determination of the imposition of inheritance tax is made based on the tax payment notice, in principle, its effect shall take effect as stated in the tax payment notice. Therefore, if there was no notification to the heir, even though the determination of the amount of increased tax based on the initial determination of the amount of tax to be paid, the heir’s position of the heir subject to the tax payment notice cannot be known.

(2) Therefore, in the instant case, while the head of ○○ Tax Office reduced the tax amount determined in the initial disposition due to the primary correction but did not notify it, the head of ○○ Tax Office notified the Plaintiff et al. of only the difference between the tax amount determined in the primary correction due to the secondary correction upon the notice of tax payment. As such, the tax amount externally notified plus the tax amount imposed in the initial disposition, the second correction disposition constitutes an increase in the amount of inheritance tax.

(3) As such, if the second correction disposition is considered to be an increase or decrease, it is calculated on the premise of the payment period set in the original correction disposition, and the additional dues paid prior to that disposition constitutes the payment without any cause on May 4, 1998, which is the time of the second correction disposition (so-called payment), so the heir, including the Plaintiff, may file a claim for return of the objection at that time, and the five-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated in Article 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes also proceeds from that time.

(4) In addition, the surcharges paid after the second corrective measure were calculated on the basis of the initial due date set in the original disposition, and the surcharges paid therefrom were not required to be paid at the time of the payment, and thus, the heir may raise an objection at the time of the actual payment, and the period of extinctive prescription will run from the time of each payment.

B) [The Plaintiff’s right to claim the return was interrupted by the Plaintiff’s filing of the administrative litigation]

(1) According to the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 6, and 7, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation with the ○○ District Court seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition (No. 98Gu8118) regarding the 7th corrective disposition.

(B) However, in the appellate trial of the lawsuit (○○ High Court No. 2002Nu1657), the Plaintiff asserted that the additional collection disposition by the head of ○○ Tax Office against the heir, including the Plaintiff, was invalidated by the subsequent increase and correction, and submitted on November 27, 2002, an application for revision of the purport of the claim seeking revocation of the said collection disposition, in the sense of seeking confirmation.

(C) On February 13, 2004, the above appellate court rejected the part of the claim on the ground that the surcharge was already paid in full for the part on the part on which the revocation of the above surcharge collection disposition was sought as a civil lawsuit, and that it was not necessary to seek a revocation of the collection disposition as a separate administrative litigation (the part on which the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing inheritance tax was partly favorable) but appealed to the Supreme Court with 2004du○○○○, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the above appellate court on August 24, 2006 and remanded to the ○○ High Court, and the above case is currently pending at ○○ High Court.

(2) Generally, an administrative litigation seeking cancellation or change of an illegal administrative disposition cannot be deemed to exercise a private right, and thus, it does not constitute a cause for interruption of prescription against a private right. However, a lawsuit seeking cancellation or invalidity confirmation of a taxation disposition, which is a means of realizing a right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against an erroneous tax payment, is similar to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of an objective tax obligation, and is substantially similar to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation as a civil petitioner. Whether a taxation disposition is valid is in a relationship between the existence or absence of the right to claim a return against the tax paid as a result of the said taxation and the interest relationship between the tax and the person liable for payment. In such a case, even though a lawsuit seeking cancellation or invalidity confirmation of a taxation disposition is an administrative litigation, it can be deemed that the lawsuit constitutes a judicial claim, which is the cause for interruption of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment, which is the cause for the return of unjust enrichment, even if it

(3) Therefore, in order to confirm that the collection of additional dues is null and void, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of additional dues against the Defendant was interrupted on November 27, 2002, when the Plaintiff sought revocation in an administrative litigation, and since the trial is still in progress, the extinctive prescription itself is still in progress (if the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription will run again).

(4) However, as of November 27, 2002, there was no time limit for extinctive prescription of five years from the time when the right to claim the return of the Plaintiff’s additional dues occurred (the fact that the previous additional dues were paid before the second additional disposition was issued on May 4, 1998). Ultimately, there was no part of the claim for the return of the instant additional dues, the statute of limitations expires.

(5) Although the Defendant asserts that, as the Plaintiff’s claim against the disposition of collection of additional dues was dismissed at the appellate court of the above administrative litigation, the interruption of prescription became extinct as seen above, the entire appellate court’s judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court, and the lawsuit is still pending, and thus, the interruption of prescription cannot be deemed extinguished. Furthermore, even if the part of the appellate court’s judgment was dismissed at that time (it is not clear whether the evidence submitted alone became final and conclusive as to the rejection of the disposition of collection of additional dues or whether this part was reversed together with the appeal). If a judicial claim is filed again within 6 months after dismissal, it shall be deemed that the cause of interruption of prescription occurred at the time of the first judicial claim (Article 170(2) of the Civil Act). The above appellate court’s dismissal judgment is written on February 13, 2004 (in light of the related Supreme Court’s ruling, it is apparent that it is erroneous in the judgment of the appellate court, but in light of the relevant Supreme Court’s ruling, it is within 2004 months after the instant lawsuit was filed.

C) [Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is groundless]

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is groundless.

(iii) [The amount to be returned]

A) The additional dues to be returned by the Defendant to its heir on November 30, 201, due to the revocation of the second corrective disposition, are KRW 959,418,550, which is the amount equivalent to the additional dues, out of the amounts paid up until November 30, 201.

B) In addition, when calculating the additional amount of national tax corresponding to the above additional charges from the date of each payment to September 4, 2007, which is the date of the decision of this case, pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Framework Act on National Taxes, the amount is KRW 492,258,873 as stated in the total column of the calculation statement of additional charges 1. The plaintiff calculated the additional amount of national tax refund as of February 25, 2004, which is the day before the filing of the lawsuit in this case, as of February 25, 2004, which is the day before the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff sought payment of the additional amount of national tax refund according to the annual rate of 5% as stipulated in the Civil Act for the period from February 25, 2004, which is the day before the filing of the lawsuit in this case to the day before the application of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. However, in this case, it applies only to the above period.

C) However, the part in which the Plaintiff may claim the return is only one of co-inheritors, and the part in which the Plaintiff may claim the return is distributed according to the inheritance shares based on the above additional dues and the additional dues among the additional dues on the additional dues ( barring any other special circumstances, it is bound to be considered that the above additional dues were paid according to the inheritance shares provided in the underlying disposition). However, since the above additional dues were fully paid based on the initial disposition, and the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares prescribed in the initial disposition are 43.26%, the amount for which the Plaintiff may claim the return should be deemed to be equivalent to 43.26% of the calculated amount [this point, the part in which the Plaintiff may claim the return shall be deemed to be equivalent to 43.26% of the calculated amount [it shall not be accepted by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares (Article 57.5%) set forth in

Accordingly, when calculating the amount of additional dues to be returned to the heir, including the plaintiff, and the amount to be returned to the plaintiff among the additional dues on national tax refund, it is 627,95,653 won as stated in the total column of the calculation of additional dues according to the plaintiff's inheritance shares in attached Form 2.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 5, 2007, the day following the ruling of this case, which is the day of the ruling of this case, to the day of full payment, to the day of the decision of this case, which is the day of September 5, 2007 to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.