[2] In a case where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment either has not refunded the amount of additional refund to the taxpayer under Article 110(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, or has explicitly refused the refund, whether the taxpayer can immediately make a claim for return of unjust

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 110(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides, “Where the corporate tax amount or the tax base amount of the business year immediately preceding the business year in which the initial refund amount was determined after the determination of the initial refund amount has changed, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall immediately make a re-determination of the initial refund amount, and additionally refund or overpaid refund amount after the determination of the initial refund amount.” If the corporate tax amount or the tax base amount of the business year immediately preceding the business year after the determination of the initial refund amount by losses by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment differs, the re-determination of refund amount under the above provision is merely an internal administrative procedure of the tax authority determined to refund the finalized refund amount, and cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, where the corporate tax amount or the tax base amount of the business year immediately preceding the business year in which the initial request for refund was made differs after the determination of the initial refund amount, or the tax base amount of refund amount can be immediately refunded, if the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.

However, the court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case cannot be made immediately on the ground that the plaintiff notified the tax office's refusal to refund the losses for the business year 200 on the ground that the corporate tax amount belonging to the business year 1999 and the tax base amount of the corporate tax are changed. However, the court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case cannot be made immediately on the ground that the plaintiff notified the refusal to refund to the head of the tax office. In light of the above legal principles, the court below determined that the taxpayer can claim for return of unjust enrichment immediately on the ground that the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment did not refund the additional amount of tax to the taxpayer pursuant to Article 110 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act even if there was a tax amount to be refunded to the taxpayer or that the taxpayer could not claim the return of unjust enrichment immediately on the ground that the decision of the court below is erroneous.

However, the additional refund by the retroactive deduction of losses is made against the original deficit amount for which the taxpayer applied for a retroactive deduction, and therefore, the deficit amount for which the original retroactive deduction was not applied cannot be applied for, and the tax amount to be refunded additionally based on the corporate tax amount or the tax base amount different from the deficit amount for which the initial request for retroactive deduction was filed. In this case, it is clear in the calculation that there is no tax amount to be refunded additionally because the deficit amount for which the Plaintiff applied for retroactive deduction at the time of the initial request for refund and the changed corporate tax amount for the business year 1999 as recognized by the facts duly confirmed by the court below, and the tax amount to be returned again based on the tax base amount for which the tax base amount was deducted based on the facts duly confirmed by the court below, and therefore, it is obvious that the plaintiff's return claim of unjust enrichment

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that a decision on additional refund under Article 110(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act or a decision on refusal of additional refund is a disposition subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of transfer of the competent court premised on the premise that the decision on refusal of additional refund is a disposition subject to appeal litigation cannot be accepted

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)