부당이득금반환
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
The plaintiff's total costs of litigation.
Judgment ex officio is made.
1. Article 51(7) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that “The provisions of the National Tax Collection Act’s notification, demand and disposition on default shall apply mutatis mutandis to a claim by the director of a tax office for the return of the amount already appropriated or paid as a result of the cancellation of the determination of
This is a special procedure that allows the efficient collection of error refund or excessive refund tax amount by granting both the authority to determine the existence or amount of national tax and the authority to enforce compulsory collection in the absence of voluntary performance to the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.
In light of the contents of the provision and legislative intent, where a corporation which received corporate tax by a retroactive deduction of losses under Article 72 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) is found not to be a corporation subject to retroactive deduction of losses, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment can only collect the erroneously refunded refunded refunded tax amount by compulsory collection pursuant to Article 51(7) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and can not seek a return of unjust enrichment
Meanwhile, Retroactive deduction of losses under the former Corporate Tax Act is a specially recognized system for a certain small or medium enterprise for the purpose of tax policy, and the head of the competent tax office, upon the taxpayer’s application, determines whether the occurrence of losses carried forward, etc. and the procedural requirements are met and determines whether the amount of tax should be met, and then the taxpayer’s claim for refund is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25590, Oct. 27, 200). Thus, the determination of refund of losses by retroactive deduction of losses should be deemed as an act
Therefore, the tax authorities.