2. On January 6, 2015, the Defendant revoked each disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 0,000,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010, value-added tax for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010, and KRW 00,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, and value-added tax for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 200,000,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2011.

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

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 수정하는 부분

1. (d) part of the judgment of the first instance (from the 17th day of the judgment to the 20th day of the judgment) shall be amended as follows:

d. Accordingly, on January 6, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the first term value-added tax refund of KRW 0,000,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2010, KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 201, KRW 00,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 201, and KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 20,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 20,000 for the total amount of KRW 00,00,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 201 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In substance, each disposition of this case is a redemption disposition of the national tax refund to be refunded by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, so it is lawful to specify its purport so that the Plaintiff does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s appeal on each tax payment notice. However, each disposition of this case does not specify specific grounds for redemption, and each disposition of this case cannot be seen as a redemption disposition of the national tax refund. Accordingly, each disposition of this case should be revoked on the grounds that it was unlawful in the process of notification.

B. Relevant statutes

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

1) In a tax payment notice on the disposition of restitution of a national tax refund, in light of the language and text thereof, a tax payment notice must clearly state that the disposition of restitution of the national tax refund is a disposition of restitution, specific grounds for restitution, etc. to the extent that the taxpayer can be aware of, so as not to cause any impediment to a taxpayer’s decision on whether to appeal or an appeal against dissatisfaction. If the tax payment notice did not adequately state such matters, barring special circumstances, the disposition of restitution thereof shall be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du17305, Jan. 1

2) However, upon examining Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, the notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case stated that "the notice of tax payment of this case is the Value-Added Tax Act that belongs to "the second term portion of 2010 or 2011", and only stated that "the notice of tax payment of this case is the same as "the data processing (written correction)" as "the data processing (written correction)" which belongs to "the lower end of each tax payment notice", and also at the bottom of each tax payment notice, the notice of tax refund or refund amount paid in thickness when the decision on sales of BB business establishment was revoked."

3) In this regard, the Defendant asserts that “The previous disposition of this case is revoked even with the written notice of tax payment, and can be seen as the disposition of recovering the relevant refund amount.” However, it is objectively difficult to understand that the taxpayer, other than a legal expert, is aware of the purport that each of the instant dispositions is subject to the new imposition of value-added tax, revocation of the previous decision of refund, and the disposition of recovering refund amount.”

4) Furthermore, it is difficult to understand what specific reasons need to be recovered by the language and text of the above tax payment notice. The reason why the above tax payment notice provides for the presentation of reasons is for the other party to a disposition to raise convenience in determining whether the other party to a disposition is a litigation or preparation for litigation, but on the other hand, it is an aspect that the administration is to ensure more careful, fair and lawful administration, i.e., a means of securing prior legality. Therefore, the pertinent tax payment notice clearly recognizes what measures should be taken in the course of the disposition, and clearly presents it as the reason for the disposition. However, it is difficult to see that either of the above tax payment notice function is satisfied.

5) On this ground, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “the Plaintiff did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s appeal by filing an administrative appeal against each of the dispositions in this case,” but according to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3, the Plaintiff appears to have imposed a new value-added tax on the Plaintiff at the administrative appeal stage, and the Plaintiff merely asserted that “the disposition imposing the value-added tax on the Plaintiff is unreasonable even if the Plaintiff is not a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act,” and it is difficult to deem that there was no hindrance to the Plaintiff’s appeal.

6) Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful on the ground of defect in the presentation of reasons. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case must be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling it and accepting the plaintiff's claim.