부당이득금반환청구[국승]
Seoul Central District Court 2017 Gohap54565 ( October 25, 2018)
Claim for Return of Unjust Enrichment
(as in the judgment of the court of first instance) It should be viewed as a confirmative provision clarifying that the claim for refund of value-added tax on the amount of tax overpaid or erroneously paid by the purchaser belongs to the purchaser according to the special case for payment by the purchaser.
National tax refund under Article 51 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Seoul High Court 2018Na2043669
Plaintiff and Appellant
00
Korea
Seoul Central District Court 2017 Gohap54565 ( July 25, 2018)
November 21, 2018
December 12, 2018
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,146,08,456 won with 5% interest per annum from August 15, 2017 to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.
【Revisioned Part】
In addition, the ○ Court's decision No. 4th of the first instance court's decision, "Dismissal of a request for a trial" is "Dismissal of a request for a trial".
Article 106-9 (11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the special provisions of this case apply only to the case where a scrap scrap operator is supplied with scrap scrap, etc. from another scrap operator. Thus, it is not applicable to a case where aa industry, etc. is not supplied with scrap, etc. from the Plaintiff, and Article 106-9 (11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is premised on the application of the above provision, shall not be applicable. However, as seen earlier, a industry, etc. deposits the value-added tax in the management account in the name of the Plaintiff established in the Ss Bank, pursuant to the special provisions of this case. Article 106-9 (11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the refund of the amount of value-added tax paid by mistake or in excess of the amount of value-added tax paid under the special provisions of this case. Accordingly, it is clear that each of the above provisions is applicable to a claimant for refund of the amount of value-added tax paid under the special provisions of this case.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.