The case shall be transferred to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. In light of Articles 17(1) and 24(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 72(1), and Article 72(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and its form and legislative intent, etc., the State’s duty to pay the value-added tax to a taxpayer under the said Value-Added Tax Act is directly generated pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes regardless of whether the State has actually paid the amount of tax collected excessively from the taxpayer in any taxable period from the taxpayer, and its legal nature is the public law obligation specifically determined by the said Value-Added Tax Act and its existence or scope is determined and specifically recognized from the tax policy point of view. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the taxpayer’s duty to pay the value-added tax to the country corresponding to the State’s duty to pay the said amount of value-added tax to the taxpayer is not a civil procedure, but a party litigation procedure provided for in Article 3 subparag. 2

2. Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant lawsuit is seeking the payment of value-added tax refundable under Article 24(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which applies to the value-added tax refundable for the first period of 2010, on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the payment of value-added tax refundable under Article 24(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which constitutes a party litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, the court of first instance and the lower court have jurisdiction over the location of the head of the Suwon District Tax Office, which is the relevant administrative agency. Nevertheless, the first instance court and the lower court determined that the instant lawsuit was brought before the Seoul Central District Court and thus violated the legal principles on party litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act, thereby violating the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction. On the other hand, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to fall under the case where it is obvious that it would be dismissed due to its illegality after transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da25261, Jul. 24, 2008).

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court of first instance ex officio, revoke the judgment of the court of first instance, and transfer the case to the competent court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.