[2] In a case where the tax amount was paid under the name of the business title holder due to the tax assessment by the business title holder despite the existence of a separate business title holder, but the tax assessment was invalidated or cancelled, the right to claim the refund of the tax amount paid under the name of the business title holder

[2] In a case where a tax authority imposed a tax on a business title holder even though a business title holder exists, the legal relationship between the business title holder and the tax authority is established. This separate legal relationship from the legal relationship between the actual business title holder and the tax authority. Even if the actual business owner paid the tax in the name of the business title holder or paid the tax, the legal effect of the tax payment is merely attributable to the business title holder, who is the other party to the tax disposition, and the actual business owner’s tax payment is not deemed to have been effective in the legal relationship between the actual business title holder and the tax authority. Therefore, in a case where the tax amount was paid in the name of the business title holder due to the tax disposition, but the tax amount paid in the name of the business title holder was invalidated or revoked, the claim for the refund of the tax amount paid in the name of the business title holder and the tax authority shall be deemed the

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 51(1) main text of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that “In cases where a taxpayer has overpaid or erroneously paid the amount of national tax, additional dues or disposition fee for arrears, or there is any amount of tax to be refunded under the tax-related Acts, the head of a tax office shall immediately determine the erroneous payment, excess payment or tax amount to be refunded

Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning national tax refund declares the legal doctrine that the immediate return of a national refund without waiting for a taxpayer’s application for refund, in a case where any erroneous payment, the existence and scope of which have already been determined as unjust enrichment, is consistent with the justice and fairness. Thus, the amount of erroneous payment, the existence and scope of which have already been determined, may be claimed as a civil lawsuit claiming a return of unjust enrichment by a taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29918, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.).

In this case where the plaintiff seeks the return of unjust enrichment on the premise that the amount of tax paid in the name of the plaintiff constitutes the amount of erroneous payment, the court below is justified in considering it as the subject of civil procedure and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the form of lawsuit for return of erroneous payment or the legal principles as to the competent court, contrary to

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In a case where the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs, the tax-related law applies to the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs as a taxpayer (Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). As such, there exists a legal relationship in which the actual entrepreneur who actually controls and manages the relevant taxable object is ultimately liable to pay the tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9935, May 16, 2014, etc.)

However, in a case where a tax authority imposed a tax on a business title holder despite a separate business owner, the legal relationship between the business title holder and the tax authority is established. This is a separate legal relationship from the legal relationship between the actual business title holder and the tax authority, even if the actual business owner paid the tax in the name of the business title holder or paid the tax, the legal effect of the tax payment can be attributed to the business title holder, who is the other party to the tax disposition, and the actual business owner cannot be deemed to have the effect of the tax payment in the legal relationship between the actual business title holder and the tax authority. Therefore, in a case where the tax amount was paid in the name of the business title holder due to the tax disposition, but the tax amount was invalidated or revoked, the claim for the refund of the tax amount paid in the name of the business title holder shall be deemed the direct party to the legal relationship between the business owner and the

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, on the erroneous premise that in such a case, the person entitled to claim the refund of the amount of erroneous payment should be deemed the actual business operator who actually paid the amount as a taxpayer under the principle of substantial taxation, and determined that the Defendant was the Nonparty who actually paid the amount of erroneous payment, not the Plaintiff, who is the other party to the said taxation, but the person entitled to claim the refund of the amount of erroneous payment, due to the imposition and cancellation of the global income tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff registered as the business operator in relation to the sale and lease

Therefore, such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim the repayment of erroneous amount under Article 51 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)