(a) 95,686,284 won and the interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from November 27, 2013 to the date of full payment;

(b) Money of KRW 1,69,319,080: 3.4% per annum from November 9, 2013 to March 13, 2014; and 2.9% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3 Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

(a) Payment of research and human resources development expenses;

The plaintiff entrusted research and development services to aaaa, a corporation bbbb, etc. and disbursed 2,252,365,144 won, 3,730,972,379 won in the business year 2001, 10,905,701,410 won in the business year 2003, 958,456,604 won in the business year 2003, 44,911,338,387 won in the business year 2005, and 71,758,83,924 won in the business year 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "research and human resources development expenses of this case").

(b) Tax credits and additional dues;

원고는 피고 산하 ㄱㄱㄱ세무서로부터 이 사건 연구인력개발비가 조세특례제한법 소정의 연구인력개발비 세액공제 대상이라는 확인을 받아 2009. 10. 15. 2006 사

It received 19,155,977,658 won from the calculated corporate tax for the business year, and 19,155,977,658 won as the corporate tax refund for the business year 2006 and 2,189,610,420 won as additional dues.

(c) Imposition and payment of corporate tax;

1) On March 27, 2012, the Defendant was not eligible for the tax credit for research and human resources development expenses in this case.

19,155,97,958 won of the above corporate tax, which was deducted from the Plaintiff, was imposed on March 28, 2012, 2,189,610,420 won as other ordinary income for additional dues.

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) on April 26, 2012, KRW 19,155,97,958 of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 to the Defendant.

In addition, 2,189,610,420 won were paid.

(d) Decision of the Tax Tribunal;

The plaintiff raised an objection against the disposition of imposition of the above corporate tax and other income transferred to the court.

On September 21, 2012, the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 21, 2012.The Tax Tribunal determined on July 17, 2013 that KRW 55,727,852,681 of the research and human resources development expenses of the instant case constituted tax credits.

E. Defendant’s refund and additional payment on refund

According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, on August 13, 2013, the Defendant paid 14,604,168,300 won as the corporate tax refund for the business year 2006, and 715,572,880 won as additional dues for the refund, and 1,669,319,080 won as the other ordinary income refund for the ordinary income transfer (hereinafter “the other ordinary income refund of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and change in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number)

The purpose of the whole theory

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

In the first place, since the dispute refund money of this case falls under the revenue of Article 2 of the Management of the National Funds Act, which is cash, etc. paid with the revenue of the State pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, the defendant should pay the interest prescribed in Article 15 (2) of the Management of the National Funds Act and Article 17-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Management of

Preliminaryly, even if the Management of the National Funds Act does not apply to the refund money for dispute of this case for household affairs, Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies mutatis mutandis to the refund money for dispute of this case.

Interest shall be added.

2) The defendant's assertion

Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the refund of national tax should be paid in cases where the refund of national tax is paid, and Article 51 of the same Act provides that "amount overpaid or erroneously paid out of the amount paid as national tax, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default, whichever is applicable." Thus, the refund of this case does not fall under any category of national tax, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default, which are the object of paying the refund of national tax, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default. Therefore, the refund of this case cannot be imposed on the refund of dispute of this case under the content of the text and the principle of strict interpretation.

B. Determination

1) Judgment on the main argument

National funds under the Management of the National Funds Act shall mean all cash and cash which are paid with the revenues of the State or have the same value as cash in accordance with statutes, contracts, etc.

(Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Management of the National Funds Act) The reason for the revenue is the general concept of all cash, etc. paid to the National Treasury without being paid to the National Treasury. The national funds that do not have the basis for statutes, contracts, etc. can not exist, and the status of the national funds overlap with the payment under various statutes or contracts

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that taxes paid by the Act on the Imposition and Collection of National Taxes are national taxes, and at the same time national funds and national taxes erroneously paid or overpaid shall be the national funds. Article 15 of the Management of the National Funds Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are general provisions on the return of national funds erroneously paid or overpaid, shall be applied in preference to the former, as the relationship between the general law and the special law.

Therefore, inasmuch as taxes related to research and human resources development expenses of this case are paid as a performance of a tax obligation finalized by a report under the Corporate Tax Act, and thereafter a refund, re-return, or re-return is made by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, etc., the provisions on the refund of national taxes erroneously or erroneously paid under the Framework

The plaintiff's primary assertion that the Management of the National Funds Act applies to the dispute refund of this case which was overpaid or erroneously paid is without merit.

2) Determination on the conjunctive assertion

A) The head of the tax office under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall pay national taxes, additional dues or disposition fees for arrears.

Article 51(7) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the National Tax Collection Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where the head of a tax office claims a refund of the amount of overpaid or erroneously paid, the amount of overpaid or erroneously paid, or the amount of tax to be refunded under the tax-related Acts shall be immediately determined as the refund of national taxes, and where the refund of the national tax is appropriated or paid to the taxpayer, the refund of the national tax shall be added to the refund of the national tax. Article 51(7) of the same Act provides that where the refund of the amount is erroneously paid or paid due to reasons such as erroneous refund or overpaid refund of the national tax refund, etc., and the head of a tax office claims a refund of the amount, the provision on notification, demand, and disposition for arrears shall apply mutatis mutandis. Furthermore, the Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for cases where a refund of the national tax is to be returned due to erroneous refund or overpaid refund of the national tax refund appropriated or paid to the head of a tax office. However, as long as the provisions on the collection of national taxes are applied mutatis mutandis.

In light of the above legal principles, the imposition of separate corporate tax on March 28, 2012 to recover part of the amount which the Defendant paid as additional dues in the refund of corporate tax shall be revoked by the decision of the Tax Tribunal and thus returned to the Plaintiff again shall be deemed to fall under the refund of the amount overpaid or erroneously paid due to an administrative disposition related to the collection of national taxes. As long as the other ordinary transfer income of the party in dispute refund of this case paid to the Defendant constitutes the amount which has been overpaid or erroneously paid due to an administrative disposition, unjust enrichment due to the holding of erroneous or erroneous payments need to be returned. It is reasonable to apply the provision on additional dues under the Framework Act on National Taxes to the refund of the dispute refund of this case which has been overpaid or erroneously paid, and therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the refund money of this case to the Plaintiff from April 27, 2012 and the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes").

B) Furthermore, the main text of Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning the interest rate applicable to the additional refund on the refund of the dispute refund of this case to be paid by the defendant, and the additional payment on the refund of national refund of this case

The term "interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree" means the interest rate prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance in consideration of the average interest rate on time deposits with a maturity of one year in commercial banks (Article 30 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the interest rates prescribed

Acts and subordinate statutes based on applicable interest rates;

Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (No. 205) shall be from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

Article 19-3, Article 1 of the Addenda

Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (No. 320) shall be from March 1, 2013 to March 13, 2013.

Article 19-3, Article 2 of the Addenda

Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (No. 404) from March 14, 2014 to now 29/1,000

Article 19-3, Article 3 of the Addenda

A refund arising from April 27, 2012, which was the day following the date when the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant for KRW 1,69,319,080, which was due from April 27, 2012 until November 8, 2013, which was the date when the application for the payment order was filed.

급가산금은 9,568,627원 Q= 5,634,523원(= 1,669,319,080원 × 308/3651) × 0.40%)+ 3,934,104원(= 1,669,319,080원 × 253/3652) × 0.34%), 원 미만 버림. 이하 같다 �이 됨은 계산상 명백하다.

Therefore, the Defendant: (a) as to the Plaintiff, ① KRW 9,568,627 for additional dues that accrued from November 27, 2013 to the date following the date on which a duplicate of the application for the instant payment order was served to the Defendant; and (b) as to KRW 1,69,319,08 for additional dues of KRW 3.4% per annum under the Framework Act on National Taxes from November 9, 2013 to March 13, 2014; and (c) as to the annual interest rate of KRW 1,669,319,08 from March 27, 2012 to February 28, 2013 to the date on which the duplicate of the application for the instant payment order was served to the Defendant, the amount of additional dues of KRW 3.4% per annum from March 1, 2013 to November 8, 2013 to the date on which the additional dues of this case were paid.

C) On March 28, 2012, the Defendant did not impose interest, additional dues, etc. pursuant to Article 748(1) of the Civil Act at the time when the Defendant recovered the additional refund of national taxes from the Plaintiff on March 28, 2012. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that when the Defendant returned the additional refund of national taxes to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, a bona fide beneficiary, does not add additional refund of national taxes to the additional refund of national taxes, and only the original would accord with equity.However, Article 52

Since interest falls under the category, regardless of the good faith and bad faith of the country that is a beneficiary, it is finalized according to the initial date and rate determined by the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11808, Sept. 10, 2009). The reason why the defendant did not collect interest at the time of recovering the refund of national refund from the plaintiff is that the additional refund of national refund refund to the plaintiff does not have an obligation to pay interest

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining agency

The Gu is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.