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

A. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased from C, a real estate rental business operator, the purchase price of KRW 1,300,00,00 (land minute KRW 730,320,648 + building cost + KRW 569,679,352) from C, a real estate rental business operator, to enter into a lease contract with the existing lessee of the instant real estate.

B. On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the portion of the instant real estate purchase price, and paid KRW 56,967,935 of the value-added tax on the portion of the instant building. The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax on the first term portion in 2017, and was deducted as an input tax amount.

C. On February 8, 2019, on the ground that the instant real estate transaction between the Plaintiff and C does not constitute a “transfer of business” under Article 10(9)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the head of △△△△ Tax Office decided to deduct the input tax amount related to the instant real estate transaction from the input tax amount, and to increase the Plaintiff’s value-added tax and additional tax to KRW 73,710,165.

D. On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C, stating that C transferred the Plaintiff with respect to the refund of value-added tax and the refund of unjust enrichment with respect to the refund of value-added tax for the first period of January 2017, 2017, which C had against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transfer claim”), and the Defendant was notified of transfer. On October 14, 2019, a favorable judgment was rendered by public notice (Seoul ○○ E District Court), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 30, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the performance of the instant transfer claim on December 2, 2019, but the Defendant failed to perform this.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers for those with a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

Since a lawsuit seeking the refund of value-added tax is a party suit under public law, the plaintiff who is not the person who paid the value-added tax to the tax authority is not eligible to seek the payment of the direct refund to the defendant.

B. Determination

A party suit is a lawsuit in relation to a legal relationship under public law, which is a party to that legal relationship (Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act). The Administrative Litigation Act has both the provisions on standing to sue and standing to sue in relation to a revocation suit which is an appeal suit (Articles 12 and 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act). However, with respect to a party suit, only the provisions on standing to sue are applicable mutatis mutandis (Articles 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act). Unless otherwise provided in the Administrative Litigation Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act). Thus, standing

However, since the lawsuit of this case has standing to sue against a person who asserts his/her right to demand performance as a lawsuit for performance, so long as the plaintiff asserts that he/she holds the claim for the transfer money of this case against the defendant based on the Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes, the plaintiff is entitled

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that C would refund the value-added tax of KRW 56,967,935 and additional dues on the amount of value-added tax of KRW 56,967,935, instead of correcting the non-deduction of the input tax amount that had been deducted at the time of filing a return of value-added tax for the first period of January 2017. Accordingly, C’s refund of value-added tax was incurred. Since the Plaintiff completed the notification of transfer to the Defendant after lawful transfer, the Defendant is liable to pay

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Article 51(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 16841, Dec. 31, 2019; hereinafter the same) provides that “if a taxpayer has erroneously paid or overpaid the amount of national taxes and disposition fees for arrears, or there is an amount of refund to be refunded under the tax-related Acts (where there is any amount of tax to be deducted from the amount of refund under the tax-related Acts, referring to the remaining amount after deduction), the amount of erroneous payment, the amount of tax paid, or the amount of refund shall be immediately determined as the amount of national tax refund.” In such cases, the amount of erroneous payment (hereinafter referred to as “amount of erroneous payment”) refers to the amount of tax paid or collected notwithstanding the absence of a tax return or disposition, or the immediate invalidation thereof (hereinafter referred to as “excess payment”), the amount of tax paid in excess means the amount reduced wholly or partially upon revocation or correction thereof, and the amount of refund tax to be refunded under the tax-related Acts means the amount of tax refund already determined at the time of individual tax return or correction, etc.

B) Article 37(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the tax amount to be paid shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the input tax amount under Article 38 and the input tax amount to be deducted under this Act and other Acts from the output tax amount under paragraph (1) (the amount calculated by subtracting the bad debt tax amount under Article 45(1)). In such cases, the portion exceeding the output tax amount shall be refundable." Article 59(1) of the same Act provides that "the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall refund, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, to an entrepreneur who filed a final return on the tax amount for each taxable period, within 30 days after the final return on the tax amount for each taxable period is made." Meanwhile, Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "The tax amount to be refunded under Article 59 of the Act shall be limited to the amount confirmed by the return and supporting documents submitted under Article 48 and Article 107(5) of this Decree, and by individual credit card sales slip, etc."

The reason why the Value-Added Tax Act, supra, provides for the State’s duty to pay refundable taxes to taxpayers along with specific provisions on the definition of refundable taxes, timing and method of payment, is as follows: (a) through legislative resolution to promote the convenience of taxation and collection and prevent duplicate taxation; (b) the legislators collect and pay the output tax from the business operators who supplied goods or services at each stage of transaction before reaching the final consumer; and (c) the business operators to whom the said tax amount was collected have adopted the former tax credit system based on which the burden of the tax amount is ultimately imposed on the final consumer through the process of deducting and refunding the amount of input tax from the State; and (d) in a case where the tax amount collected during a certain taxable period is more than the amount collected by the final consumer, more than the amount equivalent to the value-added tax collected by the said taxpayer is to be collected by the taxation technology, tax policy request; and (e) the State’s duty to pay refundable taxes to the taxpayer is specifically recognized by the Act and subordinate statutes, referring to the duty to return taxes and the Act and subordinate statutes, 20.

C) Meanwhile, value-added tax is established at the end of the taxable period (Article 21(2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and is a tax by which a taxpayer files a return at the time of filing a tax base and amount of tax (Article 22(2)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), as in cases of taxes in which a taxpayer files a return of tax base and amount of tax (Article 22(2)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and as in which a taxpayer files a return of tax base and amount of tax are specifically determined by the taxpayer’s act of filing a return, the taxpayer’s act of payment is fulfilling specific tax obligations determined by the return, and the State or a local government retains the tax amount paid based on the finalized tax claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da60363, Dec. 5, 195). As such, the effect of filing a return cannot be denied unless the taxpayer’s filing

2) Determination

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, there is no dispute between the parties that reported the output tax base and the amount of value-added tax for the first period of January 2017 to the tax authority, and that C filed a tax return on the output tax due to the sale and purchase of the instant real estate. Therefore, C’s filing of value-added tax return on the output tax due to the sale and purchase of the instant real estate against C should be avoided due to its invalidation or correction. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s filing of a request for correction or the tax authority’s determination of correction to reduce the amount of tax, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.