2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 00,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 0, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. The Plaintiff is a government-funded research institute established mainly for the development and proliferation of industrial source technology in the field of machinery, reliability evaluation, test evaluation, etc. in accordance with the Act on the Establishment, Operation and Fostering of Government-Funded Science and Technology Research Institutes, Etc.

B. This B is an employee of the research institute affiliated with the Plaintiff, who is the inventor of the eight inventions related to the sponzinum refining technology, and the Plaintiff is the patentee who has acquired the patent (hereinafter referred to as the “patent of this case”) by succeeding the right to the said eight inventions.

C. On June 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a technology transfer agreement with RoCC and received KRW 000,000,000 as a consideration, and paid KRW 1,000,000 to B, who is the inventor of the above patent, as compensation on October 0, 2009 (hereinafter “instant compensation”). The Plaintiff withheld income tax on KRW 00,000,000,000 from the income subject to taxation, but did not withhold income tax on KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 as non-taxable income.

D. However, the Plaintiff collected royalties in return for the performance of a research and development task by a non-profit institution, such as the Plaintiff, and paid royalties to participating researchers, etc. in return for the performance of the research and development task to the enterprises, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the collection of income tax on the performance bonus, etc. around October 201, by deeming that the employee invention compensation and nature under the Invention Promotion

E. Accordingly, on October 0, 2013, the director of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 of the wage and salary income tax on the B’s compensation (hereinafter “instant tax disposition”), and the Plaintiff paid the tax without specifically disputing the said tax disposition.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, like the Plaintiff, did not withhold and pay income tax while paying part of the price for technology transfer as compensation to the researcher participating in the development of technology. The head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over these institutions also filed an administrative suit against the said institution. However, the said institution filed an administrative suit seeking revocation of the imposition of income tax, etc. on the grounds that it is dissatisfied with the imposition of income tax, etc. under Article 15 of the Invention Promotion Act. Accordingly, the court rendered a judgment revoking the imposition of income tax, etc. on the ground that it constitutes other income subject to non-taxation under subparagraph 5 (d) (i) of Article 12 of the Income Tax Act, which constitutes an employee invention compensation under Article 15 of the Invention Promotion Act, and the said judgment was finally finalized around October 2015.

G. In a similar case, upon revocation of the disposition of imposition, such as income tax, by the judgment, this B filed a civil petition for grievance with the director of the tax office on October 0, 2015 to the effect that, on the same date, this B would refund the income tax paid for KRW 00 million out of the instant compensation to the director of the tax office. The director of the tax office 00 received the above civil petition for grievance, and issued a decision of correction to refund KRW 00,000 to the BB on October 0, 2015, and refunded the said amount.

H. Meanwhile, on October 00, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request with the head of the tax office for rectification of the instant taxation disposition, but the head of the tax office decided to dismiss the request on October 00, 2015 on the grounds of the expiration of the period for filing the request for rectification.

2. Assertion and determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant taxation disposition is null and void due to a significant and apparent defect due to a disposition made without any legal basis, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 00,000,000 as unjust enrichment collected according to the said disposition.

B. Determination

1) If an employee, etc., succeeds to the right to obtain a patent, patent, etc. for an employee’s invention, or establishes an exclusive license in accordance with a contract or employment regulations, the employee’s right to obtain a reasonable compensation [Article 15(1) of the Invention Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11960, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply]; where a contract or employment regulation provides for an employee’s invention compensation, the situation in which an agreement was made between the employer and the employee when determining the type of compensation and the amount of compensation was established;

Article 3(1) of the "Rules on Food and Drug Rights Management" provides that the Plaintiff succeeds to the right to obtain a patent for an inventor's employee invention in accordance with the articles of incorporation and employment contract, and that the Plaintiff shall pay the inventor with incentives if the income accrues from the transfer of the patent right, the establishment of exclusive license, or the establishment of non-exclusive license in accordance with the incentive payment regulations. Article 12(1)2 of the "Guidelines on Technology Transfer Management Guidelines" provides that the Plaintiff shall pay 50% or more of the royalties collected from the participating researcher as compensation for the research and development researcher except as otherwise expressly provided for in Article 12(1)2 of the "the Guidelines for Technology Promotion Act" and Article 12(2) of the same Act provides that the amount of compensation shall be paid as compensation for the employee's invention under Article 20 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15069, Feb. 14, 200).

2) However, in order to make the defective administrative disposition null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect violated the relevant laws and regulations, and it is necessary to reasonably consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations as well as the specificity of the specific case itself. However, in a case where an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition by applying the provisions of a certain Act to certain legal relations or factual relations, it is clearly clear that the pertinent provisions cannot be applied to the pertinent administrative agency’s legal relations or factual relations, and thus, if there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the said provisions, it should be deemed that the defect is significant and obvious. However, if there is no clear legal reasoning that the pertinent provisions of the Act cannot be applied to the legal relations or factual relations, and thus, it cannot be said that the pertinent provisions of the Income Tax Act can be applied to the Plaintiff, even if the pertinent government-invested research institute’s claim for correction was erroneously interpreted, and thus, it cannot be said that the pertinent provisions of the Income Tax Act, which had already been applied to the Plaintiff’s non-profit research institute, etc.

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff accepted a civil petition for grievance with respect to the income tax of KRW 00,000,000 among the instant compensation, and decided to refund the income tax. ② The Plaintiff sought a refund in the form of a request for correction at the request of the competent tax office with respect to the remaining KRW 00,000,000, and there is no reason to treat it differently from the civil petition for grievance. ③ The head of the competent tax office made a request for correction related to the above KRW 00,000,000 on the grounds that the period for exclusion expires. Since the above request for correction was submitted prior to the expiration of the period for exclusion, the above disposition of dismissal is unlawful and void. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should return the income tax of KRW 00,000,000 paid

However, even if a civil petition for grievance with respect to the income tax that was paid for a part of the compensation in this case was accepted and a correction disposition was made, the remaining income tax assessment on the compensation cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. The claim for correction with respect to the remaining compensation in this case is not based on the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition, but on the ground that the period for filing a request for correction expires, and there is no other circumstance to deem the above rejection decision null and void. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above reasons are to be returned to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.