Opinions between the head of the competent tax office and the taxpayer in the process of examining a request for correction

part of the value-added tax for the first year of 2007, which is not only a part of the refund and mutual verification process.

207, 2007, even if the Plaintiff’s claim for correction contains the purport to refund.

Do 1. A final opinion of the head of the competent tax office that can not be considered as the determination of the value-added tax

Since it is not the market price, it does not correspond to the administrative agency's promise or public opinion explanation.

In addition, the first period of 2007 by the director of the tax office of defendant Samsung under the procedure of administrative litigation.

The tax liability due to a request for correction was determined by revocation of the disposition rejecting the value-added tax.

in such a case, the plaintiff shall not have any evidence to prove that the defendant Republic of Korea

Since the return of the value-added tax refund cannot be immediately claimed as a civil procedure, this cannot be immediately claimed.

A partial lawsuit is unlawful.

C) Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea’s aforementioned defense is reasonable.

B. Claim for revocation of the disposition rejecting the correction of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007 against the defendant Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Sector

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The notification of this case is made upon the plaintiff's request for correction in part of the 1st value added tax in 2007.

of the administrative agency’s commitment or public statement of opinion

at the time of the notice of this case, the final settlement is not yet made within the administration.

Even if they were, under the principle of trust protection, Defendant Samsung Tax Office is in accordance with the notification of this case.

for the first time in 2007, the director of the tax office shall have the duty to make the final decision.

A disposition rejecting the correction of the value-added tax for the first period of 2007 on the grounds that the exclusion period for imposition has expired.

However, this cannot be a reason to justify the reversal of the content of the instant notice, and otherwise, this does not constitute a reason to justify the reversal thereof.

It does not mean that there is a significant reason to reverse the content of the instant claim for correction.

In 2007, the exclusion period for imposition of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007, as claimed by the Head of Samsung Tax

The director of the tax office imposed the value-added tax for the first period of 2007 asserted.

On July 30, 2012, after the expiration of the exclusion period, the first value-added tax for the Plaintiff in 2007.

Article 45 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes was notified by the director of the tax office of his intention to return the tax refund.

-2 Observance of Paragraph 3, 2007 1, 2007 to the Plaintiff within two months from the date of the instant request for correction

Defendant Samsung F&T’s assertion in 2007, if the notice of the result of the claim for correction of value-added tax was given.

1 Since the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax could not result in a problem.

Even if the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax of No. 1 in 2007 has lapsed, this is the defendant.

This is due to the mistake of the director of the tax office of gender, and due to this reason, a claim for correction of value-added tax in 2007

In addition, Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (wholly amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006) may not be attached.

Paragraph (4) of this Article, Article 12-3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Presidential Decree No. 19513, Jun. 12, 2006)

According to subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1), the tax base belonging to June 9, 201, in which the Plaintiff issued the revised tax invoice.

From July 26, 2011 to 2007, the exclusion period for imposition of the value-added tax for the first period from July 26, 201

at the time of the disposition rejecting the correction of the value-added tax for the first period of 2007 by the Head of Samsung Tax Office

The period for exclusion of value-added tax for the first time has not expired. The former Value-Added Tax Act (Law)

Article 21(1)3 of the partially amended Act No. 11129 ( December 31, 201) provides that a business entity files a final return.

Where some of the items to be entered in the submitted total tax invoice are entered differently from facts;

The head of the competent tax office shall pay or refund value-added tax for the taxable period.

The amount shall be corrected by investigation, and the head of the competent tax office shall make a decision at will.

Since there is no provision for exclusion of additional refund amount, Defendant Samsung director of the tax office

The rejection of the correction of the value-added tax of the first time in 2007 is also a deviation from discretion.

C. On November 29, 2012, the head of Samsung District Tax Office refused to correct the value-added tax for the first period of November 2007 that the Plaintiff.

Sector seeks revocation as it is illegal.

2) Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office’s defense of safety

A) The Plaintiff’s value-added tax of Defendant Samsung District Tax Office for 2007 from the Tax Tribunal

90 days after receipt of the notice of the decision rejecting the request for a ruling related to the rejection of correction;

The first addition to the Defendant Samsung Tax Office in 2007, which should have become apparent in fact.

In consolidating claims for revocation of a disposition rejecting the value tax correction, Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office added Defendant as preliminary defendant.

As such, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful because the period for filing the lawsuit expires.

B) Also, the claim against the primary defendant and the conjunctive claim against the primary defendant are legally compatible.

may be subject to preliminary consolidation of claims only in accordance with the same kind of proceedings.

In addition, the value-added tax refund for the primary defendant Republic of Korea in 2007 against the primary defendant

claim for payment and the conjunctive defendant Samsung director of the tax office of 2007

A claim seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting value-added tax is not only compatible with law, but also the plaintiff;

claim against the principal defendant in the Republic of Korea is a civil suit seeking the return of unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, the claim against the Preliminary Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office is an appeal litigation.

as it constitutes an administrative litigation and subject to other types of litigation procedures, the preliminary hearing of the claim

The total is unlawful.

3) Determination on the main safety defense, etc. by Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office

A) Administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is an administrative litigation

Notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18 (1), paragraphs (2) and (3) of the same Article, requests for examination or adjudgment under the same Act.

such administrative litigation shall not be filed without the filing of the decision thereof, and such administrative litigation shall be

Notwithstanding Article 20 of the Transmission Act, the date when the decision on a request for examination or adjudgment is notified.

It must be filed within 90 days (Article 56(2) and the main sentence of Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Tax Tribunal

on June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff’s rejection of an appeal related to the disposition rejecting the correction of value-added tax for the first time, No. 2007

The plaintiff was notified of the above decision around that time, and the plaintiff was against the defendant on September 19, 2014.

In filing the instant lawsuit against the State, claim for payment, such as the refund of value-added tax for the first time, 2007

On August 18, 2015, the first place of the value-added tax correction for Defendant Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office in 2007.

The payment agency, such as the refund of value-added tax for the first time, 2007 against the defendant Republic of Korea

In addition, on August 19, 2015, Defendant Samsung Tax Office added to the ancillary claim of the Gu, as the ancillary defendant of this case.

The court of first instance on August 21, 2015 applied for the addition of the letter and applied for the foregoing ancillary defendant's prosecution from the court of first instance.

It is recognized that the plaintiff received a decision to permit the provisional application. Thus, the plaintiff's defendant Samsung tax

The plaintiff's revocation of a disposition rejecting the correction of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007 for the secretary-general shall be subject to the above taxation.

40 days after receipt of the notice of the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection; and

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

With regard to this, the plaintiff shall apply mutatis mutandis under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

According to the main sentence of paragraph (1) and Article 68 (3), co-litigants pursuant to a subjective preliminary consolidation of claims.

(2) If the action is brought, the action shall be brought against the party added at the time the first action is brought.

Since it seems that the value-added tax was levied on Defendant Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office in 2007.

A lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting rectification shall also be deemed to have been filed on September 19, 2014, which was the date of filing the instant lawsuit.

As such, the period for filing a lawsuit under the main sentence of Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is observed.

However, "legal compatibility" as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 70 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be asserted.

of the same factual basis, and on the other hand, there is a different legal assessment of the same factual basis.

the other party shall be deemed to have a legal effect and the other party shall be deemed to have a legal effect; and

or by any factual basis between the Parties; or

Recognizing the legal effect of either party by selective fact-finding that constitutes the cause of the claim; or

Does this result in denying or affirming the legal effect of the other party;

the other claim, the reasons for the determination of a single claim between the two claims are

Provided, That the process of determining each claim is inevitably combined by affecting the reasons;

(1) and (2) as well as in a case in which it is substantially and legally incompatible with each other

including cases that are incompatible (Supreme Court Order 2007Ma515 Decided June 26, 2007; Supreme Court Order 2007Ma515 Decided June 26, 2007);

The plaintiff's primary defendant in the Republic of Korea is 2009Da7076 decided September 29, 201, etc.)

The claim for the payment of value-added tax, etc. for the first time in 2007, and Defendant Samsung T&T

A claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting value-added tax in 2007 against the head of the chapter shall be legally incompatible.

Since such lawsuit is not a preliminary one of the original meaning stipulated in the main sentence of Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Thus, Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation can not be considered as co-litigation.

Since Article 3 (3) does not apply mutatis mutandis, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B) Furthermore, the statutory due date of return of the first value-added tax in 2007 is July 25, 2007.

The period of general claim for correction against the Corporation shall be the statutory due date of return pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act

On July 25, 2010, on which three years have passed from the date of filing, and the period of filing an application for rectification due to a later reason.

Pursuant to Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework

On June 5, 2011, the date of cancellation of the instant sales contract, which is two months from April 5, 201, is the date of cancellation of the instant sales contract.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim for correction of value-added tax for the first period of 2007 is filed for each of the above filing periods.

on April 12, 2012, which was filed on April 12, 2012, and constitutes an unlawful request for rectification, and

In case where a request for correction is unlawful, the head of the competent tax office shall substitute it for the request for correction by the taxpayer.

A reply to reject it shall be subject to an appeal litigation even if the response was made.

Inasmuch as it cannot be deemed a secondary disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12469, Feb. 25, 2005);

This part of a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition rejecting correction against the plaintiff's illegal correction claim is in this regard

In this respect, it is also unlawful.

C) Therefore, the above main safety defense by Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office is reasonable.

3. Additional charges on the refund of value-added tax, etc. from the second to the second period, 2007.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From April 5, 2011, which was the date of cancellation of a sales contract, June 5, 201, the two months from June 5, 2011 is terminated;

On April 12, 2012, after the whole period for filing a request for correction under this part of the Plaintiff’s request for correction expires.

As it is unlawful. Accordingly, Defendant Samsung director of the tax office is the Plaintiff’s correction office on this part.

Article 45-2 (3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes was enacted by the Head of Samsung District Tax Office.

the plaintiff's refusal disposition subject to the dispute even if the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff within the time limit.

There was no reason to deem that there was an objection.

However, in such a case, the director of the tax office as defendant Samsung F&C is Article 21.

It is possible to correct the excessive report and correct the reduction by authority pursuant to paragraph (1).

The director of the tax office of Samsung, on November 26, 2012, from 2007 to 2008, to the plaintiff.

For the tax amount refunded of value-added tax, the "revision (Cancellation of Sales Contract) by request for correction" shall be made in advance of taxation.

For purposes of pre-announcement of taxation, and 208 from November 28, 2012 to 2008

In preparing a correction resolution of the value-added tax, ‘the grounds for correction' and ‘the grounds for investigation' and ‘the grounds for calculation' are also included.

"Amendment (Termination of Sale Contract) by Claim for Correction", and "Secondary Contribution" to the Plaintiff in 2007.

by the second period of 2008, the period for filing a claim for correction of value-added tax was limited, but ex officio consideration is limited.

The payment of the refund was determined and notified.

In light of the above facts in light of the above, the director of the tax office of the defendant Samsung F&O on November 28, 2012, 2007

Article 21 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act for the value-added tax from the second to the second period from 2008

Ex officio reduction or correction shall be made, and the amount paid in excess pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes on November 29, 2012

It is reasonable to view that the amount was paid after determining it as refund money.

As to this, the defendant's Republic of Korea is subject to the time limit for filing a claim for correction by the director of Samsung;

The duty to protect taxpayers pursuant to Article 81-16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes for unlawful correction of this part by the plaintiff

Article 2(1)3 of the Handling Regulations (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 1985, Mar. 28, 2013)

Article 25 (2) 3(a) of the Regulations on the Protection of Taxpayer from the perspective of ‘civil petition for grievance' is the director of the tax office.

It is recognized that the details of the grievance fall under the disposition of erroneous calculation of tax base, tax amount, etc.

"Ex officio rectification" or "the reduction of national taxes" under the provision that such correction must be made ex officio.

It argues that the refund is merely a payment of refund under the principle of no taxation without law.

The interpretation of tax laws and regulations is a special reason to prevent the requirements of taxation, non-taxation or tax reduction or exemption.

Unless otherwise provided, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, and shall be extensively interpreted or inferred without reasonable grounds.

It is not permissible to interpret Article 25 (2) 3 of the Regulations on the Protection of Taxpayer.

the first to second to 2008 of the Head of Samsung District Tax Office's provision that it must be corrected ex officio.

Until the second anniversary of the year, it can be seen as a motive for ex officio reduction of value-added tax, and the above ex officio reduction.

It can not be seen as the basis provision for rectification or the basis provision for national tax reduction. Accordingly, the defendant's citizen can not be viewed as the basis provision.

The above assertion of the State shall not be accepted.

(B) the refund of national tax means the tax liability from the beginning does not exist or was terminated thereafter;

of unjust enrichment received or held by the State without any legal cause, even if

may be divided into the amount paid in error, the amount paid in excess, and the amount refunded according to the cause of such event.

the amount of excess payment means the amount of tax reduced in whole or in part by correction;

In the case of refund of value-added tax from the second to the second period from 2007 to 2008, the original added value by the plaintiff

tax has been duly reported and paid, but a contract which is the basis of the subsequent report has been terminated.

in light of the fact that the C&T was received through the correction of the value-added tax reduction by the C&T director, national taxes

The refund of national tax under Article 51 (1) of the Framework Act is the excess amount paid.

C) Additional dues under Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes are requests for correction under Article 45-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

whether reduction or correction was made, and pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the ex officio reduction or correction is made.

There is a national tax refund under Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes automatically if any, regardless of whether the refund was made.

section 3.

In regard to this, if the period for filing a request for correction expires, the defendant Republic of Korea shall normally correct the reduction or correction.

Payment up to additional dues on refund in addition to the refund equivalent to the amount of the reduced tax in the same manner as the reduction is corrected.

To expand the scope of relief under the tax law of taxpayers with respect to the method of tax payment.

It is possible to punish the application system for rectification introduced and undermine the consistency and stability of the tax law system.

Although it is alleged that it may result in result, limiting the period of request for correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

It is to ensure the stability of administration, and by making a reduction or revision to the head of the competent tax office.

The stability of national tax administration cannot be considered, so long as the protection of the rights and interests of such administration is given priority, so that the stability cannot be considered.

The above assertion in the Republic of Korea is rejected.

D) Correction of value-added tax from 2007 to 2008 by the Head of Samsung Tax Office

Article 21 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2007, Feb. 2, 2007)

The refund of value-added tax from the beginning to the second period of 2008 shall be governed by Article 43-3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act

After payment under subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1, a declaration or imposition that forms the basis for such payment shall be corrected or cancelled.

(1) If the refund was made, the refund shall be deemed to constitute a "national tax refund" and the initial date for such refund shall be the same.

‘National Tax Payment Date'.

In contrast, the value-added tax refund from the second to the second period from 2007 to 2008 shall be the Gu national tax.

National taxes generated from the reduction or exemption of national taxes paid lawfully under Article 43 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act;

Under the premise that the refund falls under the "amount of refund", the date of calculating the additional refund shall be the date of determining the amount of reduction or exemption.

The defendant Republic of Korea's assertion that "the next day is acceptable."

As to this, the defendant Republic of Korea shall apply to the plaintiff's unlawful claim period.

The amount of a refund was paid by correcting the amount of the claim for correction to the extent that the amount of the refund was corrected, but the Plaintiff paid the amount.

The principle of trust and good faith in the civil law claiming payment from the date of commencement to the additional payment for refund.

Although the plaintiff asserts that the cancellation of the sales contract of this case violates the agreement, the buyer of this case can do so.

the sale price paid by the Corporation (including value added tax) plus the legal interest from the payment date to the legal interest;

In light of the fact that it appears that the Plaintiff is obligated to recover, the Plaintiff’s above refund premium is added.

Since the claim for payment does not seem to violate the principle of good faith, the status of the defendant Republic of Korea

We cannot accept the assertion.

In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea was amended by Presidential Decree No. 26066, Feb. 3, 2015 at the time of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

The amount of tax paid upon a request for correction under Article 45-2 of the Act, Article 43-3(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree

Where a refund is made due to the correction of the amount of refund or refund: The date of request for correction (national tax on the date of request

If the payment is earlier than the payment date, the payment date of national taxes shall be determined as the initial date of calculation.

for reference, the return and payment date of value-added tax from the second to the second half of 2007 by the plaintiff in 2008.

From April 5, 201, the date on which the plaintiff's claim for correction occurred, to April 5, 201, the date before the plaintiff's claim for correction.

The State that cannot be deemed to bear the obligation to refund additional charges with the nature of interest on such interest.

However, Article 5 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (No. 26066, Feb. 3, 2015) is "Article 43-3 (1)."

Taking into account that the amended provisions provide that "from the point of application of the request for correction after this Decree enters into force."

In doing so, we cannot accept the above argument of Defendant Republic of Korea.

2) Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea is subject to Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 43-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of

Pursuant to paragraph (1) 1, value-added tax refunds from 2007 to 2008 to the Plaintiff

372,223,325 won in total for additional charges on the refund and the service of a copy of the complaint in this case

From September 30, 2014, the defendant Republic of Korea raises an objection to the existence and scope of its payment obligation.

Until October 23, 2015, which is the date of adjudication of the first instance court, 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act and the next day.

The rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date of full payment.

There is an obligation to pay annual damages.

4. Conclusion

Then, among the lawsuit of this case, the value-added tax exchange for the plaintiff's defendant Republic of Korea in 2007

The payment claim and the part against Defendant Samsung director of the tax office are unlawful and dismissed.

J. The Plaintiff’s exchange of value-added tax on Defendant Republic of Korea from 2007 to 2008

Part of the claim for payment, such as additional dues, shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the first instance judgment shall be accepted.

The plaintiff's defendant in the Republic of Korea among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair upon a different conclusion.

part of claim for the refund of value-added tax for the first time in 2007 and against Defendant Samsung director of the tax office.

The part of the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revocation shall be revoked, and the defendant's Republic of Korea shall be dismissed.

The appeal by the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit.8) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defendant" in paragraph (1) of this Article.

Since it is obvious that the Defendant is a clerical error of “the Plaintiff,” the Republic of Korea decides to correct it.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. Defendant Republic of Korea’s appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 3/4 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Plaintiff.

(1) shall be borne by the Corporation.

4. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Defendant Republic of Korea” in paragraph (1) of this Article refers to “Defendant Republic of Korea shall be the Plaintiff.”

The determination shall be determined.

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and scope of trial of this court

1. Purport of claim

A. As to Defendant Republic of Korea’s KRW 000 and its KRW 000 among the Plaintiff

The 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

under payment.

B. Of the above paragraph (a) above, Defendant Republic of Korea KRW 000 and its total amount of KRW 000 among the Plaintiff

at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Preliminaryly, Defendant Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office’s payment of the money to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012

The disposition rejecting the correction of value-added tax for the first period of 2007 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

1) In the first instance judgment, the following additional payments are made to Defendant Republic of Korea:

The part of the order against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant Republic of Korea shall revoke the plaintiff

On the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case for KRW 000 and KRW 000 among them.

The amount shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

2) Preliminaryly, the part of the first instance judgment against the Defendant Samsung director of the tax office is revoked.

The head of Samsung District Tax Office’s refusal to rectify value-added tax for the first period of November 29, 2007, which the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

(b) Defendant Republic of Korea: Cancellation of the part against Defendant Republic of Korea among the judgment of the first instance court, and its revocation;

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the portion is dismissed.

3. Scope of the judgment of this court.

From 207 to 2008 to 2008 against the plaintiff's Republic of Korea in the judgment of the first instance.

Plaintiff’s failure among the claim for additional value added tax refund KRW 000 and damages for delay thereof

Section 1 from September 30, 2014, on the day following the service of a copy of the complaint in this case against KRW 000.

The portion of the claim for damages for delay exceeding the rate of 5% per annum until October 23, 2015, which is the date the judgment of the court is rendered.

The value-added tax shall be levied on the Plaintiff from the second to the second to 2, 2008 by the head of Samsung Tax Office.

As long as the defendant paid a refund by accepting a request for correction and making a decision of correction, the national tax period

Pursuant to Article 52 of this Act and Article 43-3 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, 2007

Additional charges on the refund of value-added tax for the period from the second to the second period from 208 372,223,325

There is an obligation to pay the cost and its delay damages.

B. The defense of Defendant Republic of Korea and its determination

1) Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense

Additional charges under Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall have the nature of statutory interest on refunds made by unjust enrichment.

Section B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff against Defendant Republic of Korea during the period from 2007 to 2008

It is merely a civil claim for return of unjust enrichment under the civil law to claim the payment of additional value-added tax refund.

It is improper to claim it as a party suit even though it is the object of the private suit.

2) Determination

A) The national tax refund did not have any tax liability from the beginning or terminated thereafter.

Nevertheless, the state's unjust enrichment received or held without legal cause constitutes unjust enrichment.

Additional dues on refund has the nature of legal interest for unjust enrichment. In this case, additional dues on refund shall be paid on refund.

The provisions of the tax law on the contents are about Article 748 of the Civil Code on the scope of return of unjust enrichment.

Since additional dues have the nature as a special rule, they are good faith and bad faith of the country that is a beneficiary.

shall become final and conclusive, regardless of the date of commencement and rate prescribed in each provision concerning its additional charges.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11808 Decided September 10, 2009). Therefore, this part of a lawsuit is unjust enrichment.

A lawsuit seeking the return of statutory interest is a civil lawsuit.

B) However, even if this part of the suit was filed with the Seoul Administrative Court, the defendant

the first date for pleading of the court of first instance, the territory of the Republic of Korea does not defend that the jurisdiction has been infringed on by the court of first instance;

The facts revealed that the pleading was made. It is whether a party lawsuit under public law is a civil case.

There are many cases where it is difficult to distinguish them, and in the case of administrative litigation, administrative litigation

in light of the special nature of the Administrative Litigation Act, the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act may apply.

In light of the fact that there is no big difference from the civil procedure in the examination procedure, the Administrative Litigation Act

Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be deemed to have jurisdiction over the court of first instance.

not only is it reasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du22368 decided Feb. 28, 2013), but also Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Paragraph 2 of this Article, Article 411 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the appellate court violates its exclusive jurisdiction

No one shall assert that the court of the first instance has violated jurisdiction.

C) Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea’s aforementioned defense is therefore groundless.

C. Judgment on the merits

1) The aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier are revealed.

In full view of the following circumstances, the chief of the Defendant Samsung Tax Office on November 28, 2012, 2007

The former Value-Added Tax Act (Law No. 1 January 1, 2013) for value-added tax from 2008 to 2008

Article 21(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "former Value-Added Tax Act") which was partially amended by Act No. 11608

Ex officio reduction or correction shall be made, and the amount paid in excess pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes on November 29, 2012

It is reasonable to view that the amount was paid after determining it as a refund, and Defendant Republic of Korea has paid it.

Pursuant to Article 52 of the Framework Act on Taxation and Article 43-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff

With respect to the refund of value-added tax from the second to the second period, 2007, each additional value-added tax shall be levied.

There is an obligation to pay additional dues from the date of payment.

A) The statutory due date for the return of value-added tax from 2th to 2th 2008 shall be respectively the statutory due date for the return of value-added tax.

On January 25, 2008, July 25, 2008, January 25, 2009, and January 25, 2009, and the general period for filing a claim for correction therefor is the former country.

Pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on Taxation, the third anniversary of the statutory due date of return shall be affixed.

1. The period for filing an application for rectification on July 25, 201, and January 25, 2012 is terminated; and the period for filing an application for rectification on the grounds of later filing;

Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A. From 2006, the Plaintiff filed a revised tax invoice on June 9, 201 as a result of the cancellation of the sales contract for 142 households among the apartment units already sold on April 5, 201, and filed a request with the director of the tax office for rectification of value-added tax from the first to the first day of 2011, but withdrawn it on September 16, 201, and repeated receipt and withdrawal thereafter.

B. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff finally filed an application for rectification of value-added tax with the head of Samsung Tax Office from the first to the first period of 2007 in 2011 (hereinafter “instant application for rectification”). On July 19, 2012, the head of the Defendant Samsung District Tax Office is expected to determine the amount of income and the amount of tax refundable as attached to the Plaintiff in relation to the on-site verification of value-added tax. On July 19, 2012, the Plaintiff would be obliged to make a determination of the amount of income and the amount of tax refundable as in relation to the on-site verification of the value-added tax. If there is any difference between the facts after the review, the time to vindicate the Plaintiff. *

I may change."The results of the review of the claim for correction, such as the notice (income amount 1) and the notice of the request for correction (in 000 won, the 3 pages of the evidence A) stated as the result of the review of the claim for correction (in 2 pages of the evidence A) and the "amount of refund tax" are sent by facsimile. On July 30, 2012, the plaintiff again sent the results of the review of the claim for correction (in 2 pages of the evidence A1) stated as the "amount of refund tax" to the plaintiff by facsimile (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case").

D. On November 26, 2012, the head of Samsung Tax Office sent to the Plaintiff a notice of pre-assessment of taxation (Evidence A) including “pre-announcement of taxation: Correction upon request for correction (cancellation of a sales contract) and the expected total amount of tax notified: from the second to the first period of the year 2007 to the first period of the year 2011.”

E. On November 28, 2012, from the second to the first period of November 2007, the head of Samsung District Tax Office prepared a correction resolution of value-added tax, and each of the correction resolution and the "form and calculation basis" column of the above correction resolution are written as the "Correction (Termination of Sale Contract) by the correction request" respectively.

F. On November 29, 2012, the head of Samsung Tax Office paid the Plaintiff the refund amount of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period of value-added tax in 2007, KRW 000 for the first period of value-added tax in 2008, KRW 000 for the second period of value-added tax in 2008, and KRW 000 for the second period of value-added tax in 2009 and KRW 1 in 2009 for the first period of 2009 through KRW 1 in 2011. However, he decided not to pay the refund for the first period of value-added tax and KRW 207 for the first period of imposition for the first period of value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “disposition refusal of correction of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax in 207”) (hereinafter referred to as “disposition of correction”), but the National Tax Service made ex officio correction of the civil petition for correction and notification of refund.

G. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection against Defendant Samsung District Tax Office on January 31, 2013, but was dismissed on March 15, 2013. Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff’s petition for adjudication pertaining to the disposition rejecting the rectification of value-added tax was dismissed on June 23, 2014, and the remainder of the petition for adjudication was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Refunds of value-added tax and additional dues on refund for the first period of 2007;

A. Part on the claim for payment, such as the refund of value-added tax and additional refund on the first half of 2007 against Defendant Republic of Korea

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant notice is an assessment of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007. Even if the instant notice cannot be deemed as an assessment of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007, it constitutes an administrative agency’s promise or public opinion statement that a part of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007 would be refunded upon the Plaintiff’s request for correction. Even if the final payment was not yet made within the administrative agency at the time of the instant notice, Defendant Samsung Tax Office’s duty to make a final determination on the content consistent with the instant notice, under the principle of trust protection, cannot prevent Defendant Samsung Tax Office from incurring liability for payment, such as the value-added tax refund for the first time in 2007, and Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 400-30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24366, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Act”).

2) Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense of principal safety

A) The instant notice is nothing more than a full exchange of opinions and mutual verification process conducted between the head of the competent tax office and the taxpayer in the process of examining the instant claim for correction. It does not constitute an administrative agency’s promise or an official statement of opinion, since it is not a final opinion of the head of the competent tax office in 2007, nor does it constitute an administrative agency’s promise or official statement of opinion.

B) In cases where the value-added tax reported and paid is excessive, the Plaintiff’s request for correction is filed with the head of the competent tax office in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes, and if the head of the competent tax office refuses it, the Plaintiff is required to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting correction through a request for examination or a request for adjudication

3) Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s main defense

A) The main text of Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the head of a tax office shall immediately determine the amount paid in error, the amount paid in excess, or the amount of refund to be refunded under the tax-related Acts, if a taxpayer erroneously paid or overpaid the amount paid as a national tax, additional dues, or disposition fee for arrears.

Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning national tax refund declares the legal doctrine that an immediate return of the amount of erroneous payment, the existence and scope of which have already been determined as unjust enrichment, without waiting for a taxpayer’s application for refund. As such, the amount of erroneous payment, the existence and scope of which have already been determined, may be claimed by a taxpayer as a civil lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da29918, Apr. 23, 2009; 2013Da212639, Aug. 27, 2015). The Plaintiff asserted that a lawsuit claiming the refund of value-added tax, etc. upon correction should be instituted as a party litigation in accordance with the purport of the en banc Decision 2011Da9564, Mar. 21, 2013; however, this part of the judgment cannot be invoked as a different case.

Meanwhile, Article 45-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides for a so-called correction claim system that recognizes a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return to claim the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax initially reported. However, in light of the factual basis of this case’s notification as seen earlier, rather than a change in the tax liability due to the initial return or the right to claim the refund of the tax amount, the tax authority’s acceptance of the tax base due to the initial return and correction request and correction of the tax base, etc. shall have the effect of final determination on the tax liability due to the reduction or correction. In this case, when the head of the competent tax office refuses correction following the request for correction, the person liable for tax payment may be revoked by receiving the disposition of refusal in accordance with the procedures of administrative litigation and becomes final and conclusive, the return of the tax amount to the State can not be immediately requested for civil litigation (see, etc.