5 years from the date of receipt of dividends by the State; or

Inasmuch as it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed more than five years after the date on which the Republic of Korea finally received dividends, it is unlawful for the Republic of Korea to have expired statute of limitations expired

2012 Gaba210320 Return of unjust enrichment

Song AA

Korea

November 7, 2012

November 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from June 1, 2006 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff, and the defendant's Guro tax secretary and Geumcheon Tax secretary, from May 26, 2000 to May 30, 2006, received dividends in excess of KRW 35,576,901, and the defendant is obligated to return the excess amount to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant, (1) The defendant was paid the sum of the additional dues and increased additional dues under the original tax credit law, so this is the receipt of legitimate dividends, and even if the defendant was paid more than the amount of the credit, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was brought after the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription, and thus, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

2. Determination

A. Prior to whether the Plaintiff has the right to receive the amount claimed, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is examined. Article 96(1) and (2) of the National Finance Act provides that “Unless otherwise provided in other Acts, the prescription period for the right to receive money against the State shall expire by the prescription period unless exercised for five years.” Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed five years after the date when the Defendant finally received the dividend, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription period is reasonable.

B. The plaintiff asserts that it is unfair to collect taxes from the defendant for more than five years from the date on which the tax claim occurred, while collecting taxes from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's argument alone cannot be viewed as unjust because the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is against the good faith principle, and the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case must be dismissed for lack of reason.