2. The defendant shall pay KRW 632,970 to the plaintiff.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 611,850 of the global income tax for the year 2002, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 630,200, including the increased tax on November 16, 2004.

B. After December 23, 2004, the Defendant issued a decision of correction to revoke a disposition of revocation ex officio (hereinafter “instant decision of correction”), and notified the Plaintiff of a refund decision of KRW 632,970, including additional dues on December 29, 2004 (hereinafter “instant refund of national taxes”).

C. Since then, the Defendant rendered a re-determination of refund on October 30, 2006, November 22, 2007, and January 21, 2009. The Plaintiff sent a notice of refund and a notice of national tax refund to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not receive the refund of this case.

D. Each notice of national tax refund sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff states that “the national tax refund that is not received until five years after the date of the request for payment shall revert to the National Treasury,” and the notice of national tax refund issued by the Defendant on January 21, 2009 shall state that “the date of the request for payment is January 23, 2009”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above 1. Paragraph 1., the defendant is obligated to pay the national tax refund to the plaintiff according to the revocation of disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2002.

B. As to this, the defendant did not receive the refund money at the expiration of five years after the decision of this case, the first decision of refund and the first decision of refund and the first request for payment. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's right to the national tax refund of this case cannot be exercised any longer after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that since the defendant issued a refund decision on January 21, 2009 and approved the obligation by sending the notice of national tax refund and the notice of national tax refund to the plaintiff, the extinctive prescription should be suspended (the plaintiff claims that the expiration of the extinctive prescription should be determined as of the date of the request for payment as stated in the notice of refund which the defendant sent to the defendant, and that the plaintiff's claim is a claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the defendant

Except as otherwise provided in the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts, the provisions of the Civil Act apply to the extinctive prescription of the national tax refund by a taxpayer (Article 54(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Article 168 of the Civil Act provides that “The approval of an obligation shall be one of the grounds for interrupting extinctive prescription.” In such a case, the recognition of an obligation is established by indicating that an obligor, who is the party to the right to receive extinctive prescription benefit, recognizes the existence of the right against the person who is to lose the right due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period (see, e.g

As examined in the above facts, as the defendant rendered a new decision on the refund of the national tax refund of this case to the plaintiff on January 21, 2009 and sent the notice of the national tax refund to the plaintiff on January 21, 2009, it is deemed that the defendant explicitly recognized that the defendant is obligated to return the national tax refund of this case to the plaintiff. In addition, even if the notice of the national tax refund sent after January 21, 2009, which was issued after the expiration of five years from the date of payment request, is added to the notice "the national tax refund is due to the national treasury." The main text of the notice of national tax refund states that "the national tax refund is due to the lapse of five years from the date of payment request." Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant had recognized that the statute of limitations on the national tax refund of this case was interrupted by the approval of the national tax refund of this case by the national tax refund notice, and that it should re-

The facts that the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint on January 21, 2014, before five years have elapsed since the interruption of the extinctive prescription due to the sending of the notice of refund of national tax according to the refund decision dated January 21, 2009. Thus, the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s right to the refund of national tax of this case expired by the statute of limitations is without merit.

C. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 632,970 won to the plaintiff of the national tax refund of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which concluded otherwise is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices to cancel this and order the defendant to pay the national tax refund of this case to the plaintiff.