2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Assignment of the value-added tax refund claim of the non-party company

(1) On March 11, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a management-type land trust agreement and business agreement for the implementation of the second new new construction project in the Pakistan, the truster of the non-party company as the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) and agreed to receive value-added tax refund claims related to the said project from the non-party company.

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the non-party company’s value-added tax refund claim arising from the non-party company’s transfer from March 2009 to January 2012, and on April 15, 2009, on behalf of the non-party company, notified the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant of the assignment of the above claim, and the notification reached the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over that time.

(b) A claim for value-added tax refund;

In relation to the above business, on March 24, 2010, the defendant issued a decision to correct the amount of KRW 24,525,000 for filing a final return of value-added tax refund, KRW 3,558,270 for January 3, 2009, KRW 5,400 for February 5, 2009, and KRW 2009 for the non-party company, and paid each of the above refunds to the non-party company on the following day. On January 25, 2010, the defendant received a final return of the value-added tax refund from the non-party company on February 11, 201, and refunded KRW 812,490,750 for the non-party company on February 11, 2010. The defendant received a preliminary return of the value-added tax refund from the non-party company on May 37, 2010, and refunded the above refunds to the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

National tax refund is a kind of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment under the civil law, which constitutes unjust enrichment received or possessed by the State without any legal cause even though the tax liability had not existed from the beginning or has ceased to exist after it was extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da79534, Jan. 10, 2008).

In addition, if it is possible to recognize the identity of claims with respect to the assignment of claims by distinguishing them from other claims in terms of social norms, such claims shall be deemed specified. Even if the amount of claims with respect to the transfer of claims is not determined at the time of the transfer of claims, if the standards are established to determine the period during which the obligations are due, the transfer of claims shall be deemed valid (Supreme Court Decision 95Da21624 delivered on July 25, 1997).

In addition, in the case of the refund of value-added tax, the refund in the case where the input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount due to the nature of the transfer tax that the taxpayer and the tax obligor varies is similar to the establishment and determination of the taxation claim.

Therefore, in the case of the non-party company’s claim for value-added tax refund, it shall take place at the time of the decision of correction in the case of the return of correction in the case of the non-party company’s claim for value-added tax refund, so the portion of the claim for correction as seen earlier among the non-party company’s claim for value-added tax refund of the non-party company’s value-added tax refund of March 24, 2010, which is the date of the decision of correction, and the portion of the return occurred around January 201 and April 20 of the same year, which is the date of the report. The non-party company transferred to the defendant the claim for value-added tax refund accrued from March 209 to January 2012, as seen earlier.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) The Defendant asserts that the value-added tax refund, the object of which is the transfer of claims, is different from the taxable period and the refund period, and that it did not specify the specific period or amount, such as the request form for the transfer of national tax refund, and thus, did not specify the scope of value-added tax refund to be transferred. However, since the non-party company specified the scope of value-added tax refund to be transferred only as the period during which the taxable period occurs, it can be determined that the whole amount of value-added tax refund claim, the period from March 2009 to January 20

(2) The defendant asserts that the transfer agreement between the non-party company and the plaintiff is null and void since the non-party company, which is the transferor of the claim, violated the transfer agreement, but the agreement cannot be deemed null and void only on the ground of the non-performance of obligation, unless the non-party company

(3) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s notice of assignment of claims is not a request for national tax refund transfer under Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that the request for transfer of national tax refund, etc. shall be made in the form of a prescribed request for transfer of national tax refund. However, this form merely is an internal form of an administrative agency for the purpose of promoting administrative convenience. The above provision is a procedural provision with the nature of administrative rules, which does not have external and general binding force, and even if a taxpayer did not comply with the form prescribed in the above provision, it does not have the effect of the request for transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu674 delivered on September 22, 198

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,376,747,050 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 13, 2010 to December 15, 2010, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day after the delivery date of the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-won (Presiding Judge)