The holder of the claim for refund shall be the person who actually paid the tax amount.

Where the actual payer of the gift tax of this case coincides with the intent of the agency of the national treasury to whom the tax was paid, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective data, including a payment receipt, and all the circumstances at the time of the payment of the gift tax of this case, if such intent cannot be determined according to the contents of the intent

National Tax Collection Act

2017 Gohap546656 Of the claims for national tax refund, etc.

LAA

Korea

April 13, 2018

April 26, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 512,320,810 and its amount from July 14, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

15% of the annual interest rate shall be paid.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Imposition and payment of gift tax;

1) On November 1, 2014, the director of the Easta Tax Office (Additional Tax) shall pay gift tax of KRW 486,747,110 to the Plaintiff and the largestB on November 1, 2014

269,923,598 won, including 269,923,598 won, and hereinafter referred to as "the gift tax of this case") shall be jointly paid.

Each notice was given respectively.

2) The foreign exchange bank (on the port side bank) is an agency for the National Treasury that deals with the receipt of national funds.

12. 1. The gift tax of this case was fully paid.

(b) Revocation and refund of a gift tax imposition disposition;

1) On or around April 2017, the director of the Donga Tax Office ex officio revokes the imposition of the gift tax of this case and received payment.

A resolution of correction is made to refund the total amount of the tax, and around that time, 486,747,110 won of the refund, 25,573,700 won of the refund, and 512,320,810 won of the refund and additional dues on refund (hereinafter referred to as "the refund of this case") were notified to the largestB.

2) On April 21, 2017, the largestB received the instant refund from the post offices in Yangyangyangyang.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 2 to 5, and 7 evidence 2 to 5, and the court's fact inquiry about one bank

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) on December 1, 2014, pursuant to the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case, the foreign exchange bank of the gift tax of this case

(Seomun branch) made payments to the Director of the Easta Tax Office, and thereafter the Director of the Easta Tax Office revokes the imposition of gift tax of this case

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant refund to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1. If there are several persons liable for tax payment, the person who has paid the relevant tax amount;

shall be reverted to the Corporation.

2) The National Tax Service’s computer network states the taxpayer’s name automatically according to the payer number on the details of receipt notified by the National Treasury agencies. As such, the Defendant grasps the person who actually paid the relevant tax amount with the payer number. However, as the maximumB resident registration number column on the computerized data of the National Tax Service contains the resident registration number of the mostB, the most BB should be deemed the actual payer of the gift tax of this case.

3) In addition, the maximum BB resident registration number column on the receipt of gift tax of this case is indicated, and thus, the bank, the national treasury agency, at the time of the receipt of the gift tax of this case, regarded the payer as the largest BB, and paid the gift tax of this case by indicating it externally. Accordingly, the actual payer of the gift tax of this case is the largest B.

4) Of the amount paid as gift tax of this case, KRW 422,00,00,00 was paid as a check withdrawn from the account of the Plaintiff or a third party, not the largestB. The third party who actually paid the gift tax of this case, expressed his intent of payment under the name of the largestB, or even if there was an intent for the Plaintiff, the bank, the national treasury agency, was merely a internal deliberation as long as the maximumB was specified as the payer.

5) Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the instant refund to the maximum BB, the payer of the instant gift tax.

As such, there is no obligation to pay the instant refund to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The issues of the instant case

If a cause for refunding the tax paid arises, the State received the tax amount to be refunded without any legal cause, and thus a taxpayer may file a claim for refund by civil action seeking a return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da13342, Jul. 9, 191). Furthermore, the relationship between the party who performed the performance and the return of unjust enrichment arising only between the parties who performed the performance. As such, the right to claim the refund of this case is the actual payer of the gift tax. Accordingly, the key issue of this case is the issue of who actually paid the gift tax of this case.

B. Whether a taxpayer should be determined on the basis of the payer’s number

According to the evidence Nos. 3, 2, 3, and 7, each of the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, and 7, the fact that the most BB resident registration number was entered in the document column of the payer number on the receipt of gift tax of this case prepared by the foreign exchange bank is recognized.

The Defendant asserts that the actual payer of the gift tax of this case should be determined based on the serial number of the payer stated in the National Tax Service’s computerized data, etc. However, the number of the payer on the receipt of payment and the taxpayer registration number on the National Tax Service’s computerized data cannot be deemed to mean the resident registration number of the gift tax of this case. If the Defendant asserts, the Defendant’s internal business handling of the gift tax of this case did not properly state the payer, and thus, it is unreasonable to view the taxpayer at a disadvantage.

Ultimately, in cases where the actual payer of the gift tax of this case coincides with the intent of the national treasury that received the tax by the person who actually paid the tax and the intent of the national treasury, according to the contents of the intent, objective data, including the payment receipt, and all the circumstances at the time of the payment of the gift tax of this case, should be

C. Determination as to the actual payer of the gift tax of this case

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the person who actually paid the gift tax of this case is the Plaintiff in light of the aforementioned basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments.

1) The national treasury agency (foreign exchange bank) in charge of the receipt of the gift tax of this case has presented a statement of payment stating the plaintiff's name and has been in charge of the receipt of the gift tax of this case, and currently has the custody of a statement of payment stating the plaintiff's name. In addition, the payment receipt issued by the national treasury agency (foreign exchange bank) is indicated as the "Plaintiff (LA return)" on the upper part of the payment receipt issued by the national treasury agency. In light of this, it is clear that the national treasury agency (foreign exchange bank) received the gift tax of this case on the ground that it is not the largest BB but the plaintiff

2) The Defendant asserted that the gift tax of this case was paid on a check withdrawn from the third party’s account, but even if the third party, other than the Plaintiff, paid the gift tax of this case, insofar as the actual payer presented a statement of payment stating the name of the Plaintiff and paid the gift tax of this case, it is reasonable to view that the act of payment was substituted by the Plaintiff’s deceased person or agent.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 512,320,810 of the instant refund and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 14, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is obviously the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.