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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 00,000.

A. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000 of global income tax for the year 2002, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 000,000,000 including the increased tax amount on October 00, 200.

B. However, on December 23, 2004, the defendant made an ex officio decision to revoke the disposition of imposition on December 23, 2004 (hereinafter "the case").

On October 00, 000, the decision of correction was made and the decision of refund was notified to the plaintiff on 00,000 won including additional dues on refund.

C. Since then on October 00, 000, the defendant sent a notice of refund and a notice of national tax refund to the plaintiff on three occasions on October 00, 000, by making a re-determination of refund on three occasions on October 00, 000, but the plaintiff did not receive the refund.

D. Payment notice of national tax refund or notice of national tax refund sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff

The refund of national tax not received until five years after the date of request shall revert to the National Treasury, and the date of request for payment on the notice of decision of October 0, 000 according to the second decision of October 0, 00 shall be written on October 00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1 to 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on October 00, 00, which was before five years elapse from the date of the request for payment on the notice of national tax refund, which was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on October 00, 000, which was the date of the national tax refund notice. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 00,000 to the national tax refund.

In addition, Article 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes exercises rights to national tax refund and additional payment on refund of national taxes.

If it is not exercised within five years from the time it can be determined, the extinctive prescription is complete. The taxpayer’s right to claim the refund of national taxes against the overpaid or erroneously paid amount becomes final and conclusive at the time all or part of the tax liability is extinguished by revocation or correction of a report or disposition of imposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Nu6436, Jun. 15, 1989). Therefore, the Plaintiff may exercise the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment of national taxes from the date of correction decision. However, as seen earlier, the date of the instant correction disposition is set at October 0, 00, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the refund of national taxes has expired after the lapse of five years from the lawsuit.

In addition, the purpose of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating the extinctive prescription of the national tax refund for five years.

On the other hand, the "date of request for payment" in the notice of payment means the date on which the request for payment was made after the first decision of refund, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.