[2] Where acquisition tax is reported and paid in accordance with the administrative guidance based on the provisions of the invalid municipal ordinance, whether the defect in the report is significant and apparent

[2] Even if one voluntarily made a voluntary declaration in accordance with the administrative guidance based on the provisions of null and void municipal ordinances, it cannot be readily concluded that the defect in the filing of a tax return is significant and apparent, in the event that the tax liability is determined by the disposition of imposition due to the absence of the filing of a tax return.

The court below acknowledged that Article 2 (1) 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Exemption from Taxation on Urban Development Project, which provides for exemption from taxation of the market price pursuant to Article 7 (1) of the Local Tax Act, is exempted from acquisition tax on the land and buildings acquired by the owner of the land and building at the time of the first authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project, which was acquired by the implementer under the Urban Redevelopment Act, due to the sale of the relevant redevelopment project. The Seodaemun-gu Office under the jurisdiction of the defendant Si acquired the ownership of the land and building within the above project district after the execution authorization of the redevelopment project was obtained, based on the above municipal ordinance, by succeeding to the right to purchase the apartment of this case by acquiring the ownership of the land and building within the above project district, after participating in the non-party association's member's right to purchase the apartment of this case, and then sending a notice to the plaintiffs who purchased each apartment house from the non-party association to pay the acquisition tax on the apartment of this case voluntarily from April 194 to December 12, 1994.

However, acquisition tax is a tax in the form of tax return, in principle, and in this case, as a matter of principle, the tax liability is specifically determined by the taxpayer's act of setting a tax base and amount of tax and by filing a return (limited to the case where the tax office does not file a return from the taxpayer) and its payment act is the performance of specific tax obligation confirmed by the return, and the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the final tax claim as above. Thus, unless the taxpayer's act of filing a return is null and void as a result of a serious and obvious defect, it shall not be immediately deemed as unjust. Here, as to whether the act of filing a return constitutes null and void as a matter of course due to a grave and apparent defect, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy for the defective return act shall be considered as the basis of the act of filing a return, and at the same time, the specific circumstances leading to the act of filing a return shall be determined reasonably and reasonably (Article 94Da31419, Feb. 28,

In the instant case, even if the Plaintiffs voluntarily filed a voluntary report with the belief of the taxpayer in accordance with the administrative guidance based on the provisions of the null and void Ordinance as acknowledged by the court below, the above legal principles and in particular, the balance with the payer of the acquisition tax in the case where the tax liability becomes final and conclusive due to the absence of the filing of a report, and if the tax liability became final and conclusive due to the disposition of imposition as the Plaintiffs failed to file a voluntary report, the circumstances that the Plaintiffs would have been dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition, but the above municipal ordinance provisions which form the basis of the above disposition of imposition are null and void and void, and thus the disposition of imposition based on it is not null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995), and thus, the claim for unjust enrichment against the acquisition tax paid pursuant to the disposition of imposition is not allowed.] The mere fact recognized by

Nevertheless, the court below held that the acquisition tax of this case, which was paid based on the tax obligation specifically determined by the plaintiffs' act of filing a return, was unjust enrichment without any legal ground on the ground of the above circumstances, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation of a return act in the form of tax return, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a ground to point this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)