Since the amount of tax to be collected in excess due to the reduction of the amount of tax due to the disposition of correction, refund and additional dues on refund shall be paid.

Since the amount of inheritance tax has been reduced according to the disposition of correction and the money collected up to that time has been appropriated for the principal tax, the excess collection amount shall be refunded, and there is an obligation to pay additional refund for refund accrued from the day following the date of payment to the date of decision of refund payment.

2011A. 11973 National Tax refund

Lee Dong-A 5 others

Korea

August 14, 2012

August 30, 2012

1. The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs 00 won with 5% interest per annum from May 5, 201 to August 30, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from August 31, 201 to the day of complete payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 1/3 by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

With respect to each of the plaintiffs' KRW 000 and KRW 000 among them, the defendant shall pay 5% per annum from May 5, 2011 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for correction of each of the claims of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

(a) Report on inheritance tax by TitleB, and application for annual installments and payment in kind of this case;

On September 13, 1997, after the death of her wife, her heir, and her children, the plaintiffs succeeded to the status of CC directly or through the rightB as they were, as the result of the death on April 30, 2009. The rightB reported the total amount of 00 won of inheritance tax calculated by adding 00 won to the director of the tax office of North Daegu under the defendant, the inheritance tax base of 1998. The rightB provided 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. The reduction and correction disposition against the instant inheritors

1) On August 5, 199, the director of the North Daegu District Tax Office calculated the inheritance tax base by adding the value of the inherited property, such as deposits in the name of thisCC, which was omitted at the time of filing the said inheritance tax base to the value of the inherited property by adding the amount of the inheritance tax base to the value of the inherited property, and by setting the tax payment time limit of KRW 000 as of August 31, 199 to the instant inheritor, each of the instant inheritors was imposed and notified, and the said disposition of inheritance tax was later corrected to reduce the inheritance tax on seven occasions as indicated below (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of correction"), and all of them were referred to as "each corrective disposition of this case."

2) On the other hand, thisCC has jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of TT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), and its debt was not reflected in the value of inherited property. On October 11, 2004, after the five corrective measures were taken, the instant inheritor lost its ability to repay the debt amount to repay the debt amount to the non-party company. Based on this, the instant inheritor was reflected in the inherited property value as a small property, and then filed an application for correction that re-calculated and changed inheritance tax amount. The head of the tax office of the Daegu Daegu has refused it but applied for the six corrective measures according to the decision of the National Tax Tribunal (see the Decision 2005Gu851, supra), and that the debt amount constitutes a ground for subsequent correction (see the Decision 2008Du101333, Oct. 11, 2004).

(c) Payment of inheritance tax and refund money;

1) The director of the North Daegu District Tax Office collected a total of 000 won on November 15, 2002, including collecting a total of 000 won on December 30, 1999 as listed below, as well as the collection of a total of 000 won on November 15, 2002, and appropriated a total of 00 won for the payment of the principal tax, additional dues and aggravated additional dues (hereinafter “additional dues, etc.”), and once thereafter, the principal tax and additional dues, etc. accrued up to the point of time were fully paid.

2) After the above disposition of full payment, the head of the North Daegu District Tax Office took measures of 4th and 5th rectification, and the head of the North Daegu District Tax Office refunded 000 won including principal tax and additional dues, and 000 won including principal tax and additional dues, etc. according to the disposition of 4th rectification on November 21, 2002 as indicated in the above table. Accordingly, the heir of this case paid 00 won in total, including 00 won and additional dues (see the above Table 1-C).

3) After that, as seen in the above b. 2, the heir’s request for correction of inheritance tax was made on the ground that the inheritance tax was added, and accordingly, 6 and 7 were followed, and the head of North Daegu District Tax Office, after the 7th correction disposition was made, and 000 won of the refund tax due to the performance of refund obligation arising from the reduction disposition [Attachment 2] as seen below (i.e., principal tax + 000 won + additional dues + 000 won for additional dues + 000 won for additional dues) and 000 won for the refund of the 7th correction disposition, respectively, (i.e., principal tax + 00 won for additional dues + 000 won for additional dues).

D. Payment of damages by the defendant

1) Meanwhile, on March 10, 2004, the instant inheritors collected the additional dues, etc. of KRW 00 (the above [Attachment 1] (the above attached Table 1; KRW 3; KRW 4; and KRW 5) from the instant inheritors, without making a written decision and notification as to whether to grant permission for payment in annual installments and payment in kind, from December 30, 199 to November 15, 2002) on the ground that it was unlawful to collect the additional dues, etc. of KRW 00 (the remainder after deducting the refund due to the disposition of correction in the amount of the additional dues collected at KRW 40 and KRW 5) from the instant inheritors.

2) After going through the first instance trial on July 6, 2006, the Daegu High Court, which is the legal ground of the appellate trial, rendered a judgment ordering the present heir to pay the above KRW 000 and its delay damages (Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na9054), and the Defendant paid the said amount to the present heir after the judgment became final and conclusive after going through the Supreme Court Decision 2006Da51072 on July 6, 2006 through the annual payment of annual installments or the amount of tax applied for payment in kind (hereinafter referred to as "amount of tax applied for payment in kind").

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (if available, each number number is included), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

A) Inheritance tax finally borne by the instant inheritor following the 7th corrective disposition is 000 won, and 000 won, such as payment in kind, is not subject to additional dues, etc., and inheritance tax involving additional dues, etc. is merely 000 won. Accordingly, based on this, a reasonable additional dues, etc., incurred until November 30, 2002 shall be 00 won.

B) However, considering the refund following the fifth corrective disposition, the director of the tax office of North Daegu collects 000 won of inheritance tax and 000 won of additional dues, etc. from the instant inheritor (see the above attached Table 1]. The instant inheritor, through a judgment, was returned 00 won of additional dues, etc., and the Defendant is obliged to return the remainder of additional dues, etc. (=00 won - 000 won - 000 won of due additional dues, etc.) to the instant inheritor.

C) If the above 00 won additional dues, etc. are calculated in proportion to the reduced tax amount (1.00 won, 000 won, and 000 won in total) due to the 6th and the 7th revision disposition, the refund amount of additional dues, etc. due to the 6th revision disposition is 000 won (i.e., the 00 won X 6th revision disposition reduction, 000 won in total, 000 won in total), and the refund amount of additional dues, etc. due to the 7th revision disposition is 00 won (i.e., the 00 x 7th revision disposition reduction in total 16, 000 won in total).

D) Ultimately, according to the 6th correction disposition, the defendant must refund the principal tax of 000 won and additional dues of 000 won, and 000 won including the principal tax of 000 won and additional dues, etc. according to the 7th correction disposition, and separately refund the amount of each refund, 000 won (for the above 00 won), 000 won (for the above 00 won), 000 won (for the above 00 won), and 000 won (for the above 000 won), and 000 won (for the above 00 won), and then the above 2th correction disposition was refunded.

E) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the unpaid refund amount to the Plaintiffs despite the disposition of reduction or exemption of inheritance tax, and in relation to the sixth corrective disposition, the Defendant is obligated to return the unpaid refund amount to the Plaintiffs: (i) the above KRW 000 + the above KRW 000 + the above KRW 000 + the above KRW 000 + the above KRW 000 already refunded [Attachment 2], and the above KRW 00 in relation to the seven corrective disposition (i.e., the above KRW 00 + the above KRW 00 + the above KRW 00 + the above KRW 000 + the above KRW 000 + the above KRW 00 already refunded [Attachment 2].

2) The defendant's assertion

When there is a disposition of reduction or exemption of inheritance tax, due additional dues should be calculated on the basis of the determined tax amount until the time, and if the national tax refund occurred due to a disposition of reduction or exemption, the prescription of the exercise of the national tax refund claim will run. In this case, the national tax refund claim following the 6th correction disposition can be exercised from March 13, 2006, which is the date of the decision, and as the lawsuit in this case was filed five years thereafter, the claim for repayment following the 6th correction disposition has expired upon the expiration of the

B. Relevant provisions

1) Annual installments and payment in kind

C. Determination

1) Whether the claim for repayment following the sixth corrective disposition is extinguished

The heir’s right to claim the refund of national taxes is to be applied for the period of five years as stipulated in Article 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the taxpayer’s right to claim the refund of national taxes against the excess amount is determined when all or part of the tax obligation is extinguished by the return or rectification (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Nu6436, Jun. 15, 1989). As the right to claim the refund of national taxes may be exercised immediately on March 13, 2006, for which the six corrective disposition was issued, and five years have elapsed, as well as on March 13, 2011, the heir’s right to claim the refund of national taxes was extinguished. This is clearly based on the record that the instant tax refund claim was filed on October 10, 201, and the heir’s right to claim the refund of national taxes cannot be seen as being extinguished by the previous tax refund disposition, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ right to claim the refund of national taxes cannot be seen as effective under Article 130.

2) Legal principles relating to the claim for repayment following the 7th corrective disposition

(1) In a case where a tax base and amount of tax were reduced due to an error in the previous tax assessment that occurred in the previous tax assessment, the correction disposition does not have the effect of establishing specific tax obligations with regard to the balance after the revocation of the entire original disposition, but merely has the effect of cancelling and changing part of the original disposition (a reduced part). Moreover, whether to impose additional dues and increased additional dues on national taxes in arrears under Articles 21 and 22 of the former National Tax Collection Act should be determined based on the payment period, etc. of the initial disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu532, Sept. 13, 1983).

(2) On the other hand, under Article 71(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and Articles 67(2) and (3) and 70 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, where the requirements for permission for annual payment and payment in kind are all met, such as where the tax amount exceeds 10 million won, the tax office provides security for tax payment, and the application is submitted by the statutory deadline, the head of a tax office shall interpret that, in cases where annual payment in annual installments and payment in kind are already required to be permitted unless there is any requirement for cancellation of permission for annual payment in annual installments and payment in kind as provided under Article 71(4) of the same Act, and where payment in annual installments and payment in kind are permitted, the fact is already notified in writing, and even in cases where payment in annual installments and payment is made before the payment deadline is notified, it is appropriate to interpret that additional dues or increased additional dues under

B) Occurrence of claims for repayment

According to the facts established above, 00 won, which is the tax amount due to the 6th correction disposition, was reduced to 000 won due to the 7th correction disposition, and the inheritance tax due to the death of thisCC was finally determined to 000 won as of August 5, 1999. Therefore, the additional dues, etc. to be paid by the plaintiffs should be calculated again on the basis of the tax amount determined on August 31, 199, which is the initial payment deadline and 000 won. (However, the tax amount applied for payment in kind, etc., is excluded from the tax amount subject to the calculation of additional dues, etc.) and the amount of refund has been reduced again due to the 7th correction disposition, and the defendant has the obligation to pay the amount of refund additionally incurred to the plaintiffs.

C) Scope of the claim for repayment

(1) Inheritance Tax refund

The additional dues, etc. paid from September 1, 1999 to November 15, 2002 with respect to the remaining 00 won after deducting the amount of tax applied for payment in kind, etc. in the amount of 6th correction disposition, which was reduced by 00 won, shall be collected from September 1, 1999, and the amount collected until November 15, 2002, as shown in attached Table 2-6, shall be 00 won [see attached Table 1]. Thus, at the time of the 6th correction disposition, the defendant shall collect more than 00 won (00 - 000 won - 000 won) from the present heir and refund it to 00 won, and the amount of the additional dues collected from 00 won until the date of the 6th correction disposition shall be reduced to 00 won, and the amount of the additional dues collected by 000 won, and the amount of the additional dues collected by 000 won shall be reduced to 000 won until the expiration of the inheritance tax.

(2) Additional dues on refund

In general, tax refunds fall under unjust enrichment received or held by the State without any legal cause even though the tax liability had not existed from the beginning or has ceased thereafter, and additional dues are characterized as legal interest for such unjust enrichment. The provisions of the tax law on the contents of additional dues are deemed to have the nature of special provisions regarding Article 748 of the Civil Act on the scope of return of unjust enrichment. Thus, additional dues are determined according to the initial date and proportion prescribed in each provision on additional dues, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the State, which is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11808, Sept. 10, 2009). In this case, with respect to 000 won of additional refunds arising from the 7th corrective disposition, if the additional dues are calculated from November 16, 2002 following the date of payment to May 4, 2011, the date of payment of additional dues are as listed in the following table.

(d)Indivates

Therefore, the defendant has the obligation to refund 00 won of inheritance tax refund and 000 won for additional refund, and the head of North Daegu District Tax Office has the obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 5, 2011 to August 30, 201, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation of this case since the plaintiff succeeded to the amount of KRW 128,85,01 as the national tax refund under the 7th correction disposition and the additional refund due to the refund payment under the 17th correction disposition, and the defendant has the obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the next day to the day of full payment until the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.