2. The defendant shall pay KRW 632,970 to the plaintiff.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 611,850 of the global income tax for the year 2002, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 630,200, including the increased tax on November 16, 2004.

B. After December 23, 2004, the Defendant issued a decision of correction to revoke a disposition of imposition ex officio (hereinafter “instant decision of correction”), and notified the Plaintiff of the decision of refund of KRW 632,970, including additional dues on December 29, 2004 (hereinafter “instant national tax refund”).

C. Since then, the Defendant rendered a re-determination of refund on October 30, 2006, November 22, 2007, and January 21, 2009, and sent a notice of refund and a notice of national tax refund to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not receive the refund of this case.

The notice of each national tax refund sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff states, “The national tax refund that is not received by the lapse of five years from the date of the request for payment shall revert to the National Treasury,” and the notice of national tax refund issued on January 21, 2009 shall be written as “the date of the request for payment”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above 1. Paragraph 1., the defendant is obligated to pay the national tax refund to the plaintiff according to the revocation of disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2002.

B. As to this, the defendant did not receive the refund money within five years after the decision of correction of this case, the first decision of refund, and the first request for payment. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's right to the national tax refund of this case cannot be exercised any longer after the expiration of the extinctive prescription. However, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant made a re-determination of refund on January 21, 2009, and approved the obligation by sending the notice of national tax refund and the notice of national tax refund to the plaintiff.