Article 4 (Desertion of Punishment of Tax Evaders Act)

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

A. On June 2007, the director of the Ansan District Tax Office under the defendant-affiliated tax office set the period from June 21, 2007 to August 31, 2007 to conduct an investigation (integrated investigation into individual entrepreneurs including income tax, value added tax, source tax, etc.) on the grounds that the plaintiff et al. and four persons, who jointly operate the "○○○○○○ Petition Division," were suspected of omitting the amount of income and making an excessive appropriation of necessary expenses during the period from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 206, and notified the plaintiff of the investigation period around August 22, 2007. < Amended by Act No. 8635, Jul. 31, 2009>

B. Meanwhile, on August 13, 2007, the Plaintiff corrected the amount of income and necessary expenses, and filed a revised return on the tax base and the amount of tax, and additionally paid KRW 123,061,730 of the global income tax for the portion reverted from 2004 to 2006.

C. On September 3, 2007, the head of the Ansan District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the amount equivalent to the fine of KRW 47,090,280 in accordance with Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 9(1) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff was suspected of evading taxes by omitting the amount of income and making an excessive appropriation of necessary expenses (hereinafter the instant notification disposition), and the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the said fine in accordance

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

Article 45 (Revised Return)

Article 4 (Crime of Desertion of Punishment of Tax Evaders)

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The primary cause of the claim

The Plaintiff: (a) before the head of Ansan District Tax Office determines or revises the tax base and the amount of tax; (b) filed a revised tax return on August 13, 2007, which was before the commencement of an investigation into the tax offense, and paid the relevant tax; (c) thus, the full amount equivalent to the fine should be exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 7(1) of the former Rules on Determination of Taxes, notwithstanding the fact that the head of Ansan Tax Office, applying the proviso of Article 7(1) of the former Rules, has imposed the instant disposition by reducing 50%; (d) as the instant disposition was significant and obvious defects in the instant disposition, the

The plaintiff's act that has paid the equivalent amount also becomes null and void, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to return the amount equivalent to the fine paid according to the disposition of this case as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination

(1) Judgment as to the primary cause of action

In light of whether the disposition of this case or the Plaintiff’s act of paying the amount equivalent to the fine is null and void, the purpose of the former decision is to reasonably determine the amount equivalent to the fine in the case of the disposition of notification to the offender under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, this is merely an internal administrative rule for administrative affairs, and it is not effective as a law that detains the general public or the court. Thus, it cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the disposition of this case did not comply with the former decision, and the Plaintiff’s act of payment cannot be deemed null

(2) Determination on the conjunctive cause

With respect to whether the notice disposition of this case constitutes a tort by a tax official’s intentional or negligent act, or the Plaintiff suffered loss due to the pertinent notice disposition, the former determination regulations are invalid as seen earlier, and the latter decision regulations can be contested through criminal procedures by accusation of the head of a tax office, etc. by failing to implement the notice disposition under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. In such case, the notice disposition becomes null and void, and the notification disposition itself does not enforce any obligation to the offender. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant notice disposition constitutes an intentional or negligent act, or that the Plaintiff suffered loss due to such an act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.