(a) The legality of civil procedure, seeking the return of the collected tax amount by taxation disposition that is void by the deferred taxation;

B. Whether the corporate tax and the additional tax may be imposed on the agricultural cooperative;

A. Since the tax amount collected by the disposition of invalidation is unjust enrichment by the State, the lawsuit seeking the return of the tax amount can be filed by a civil procedure without going through the procedure of administrative litigation.

B. Since the corporate tax is ultimately a kind of corporate tax, for agricultural cooperatives exempt from corporate tax, the corporate tax cannot be levied as corporate tax even if there are grounds for neglecting to submit reports under Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 4 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, Article 2 and Article 41 of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2431 delivered on February 18, 1969 (Dakh 109; Supreme Court Decision 17Nu203 delivered on July 11, 1972; Decision 74Da21 delivered on September 24, 1974; Decision 73Nu73 delivered on March 12, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 106Dakh 10696; Supreme Court Decision 22Nu25 delivered on March 25, 196; Decision 486No181 delivered on July 11, 1972; Decision 72Nu93 delivered on July 21, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 102Da10211, Supreme Court Decision 203Du203, Decision 480Da18180).

Seoul UwS Cooperatives

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (74Gahap4835) in the first instance trial

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,069,907 won and the amount of 1,550,916 won from January 23, 1974 to 199,366 won from March 7, 1974 to 194,49,366 won with the rate of 5 percent per annum from August 9 of the same year to 36,234 won from August 4 of the same year, and from September 24 of the same year to 88,893 won from September 24 of the same year.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the judgment of provisional execution will be pronounced.

The defendant shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second trials.

1. First, we examine the defendant's main defense.

The defendant's original tax imposition is an administrative disposition, and even if corporate tax, additional tax, and disposition of imposition against the plaintiff's association in the household case are illegal or unjust, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the amount of the tax already collected by the civil procedure is not unlawful, since it is not possible for the plaintiff to seek correction by re-audit as provided by the National Tax Examination Request Act, or by filing a request for examination or an administrative litigation. However, the plaintiff's claim for the lawsuit in this case is unlawful. On the premise that the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the tax collected by the above disposition in accordance with the above disposition of imposition is apparent in itself, the plaintiff's claim for return of the amount of the tax collected by the plaintiff against the defendant without following the procedure of the above administrative litigation. In this case, the plaintiff's main defense is without merit.

2. The following points are examined.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, and all purports of the parties' arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 through 5, the defendant did not submit to the plaintiff association a sales and payment report with respect to the business operated by the defendant association within the prescribed period or for the reason that its contents are unclear under Article 41 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act, the defendant did not submit to the head of the competent tax office under Article 66 of the same Act with respect to the business operated by the defendant association within the prescribed period, or the corporate tax, additional tax, additional tax, occasional corporate tax for 74 years imposed by the plaintiff association at the tax office under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and additional tax, which are 1,50,916 won for 19,366 won for March 6 of the same year, gold 19,36 won for 7.8.36, 234 won for 8.38, 99.

However, Article 4 (1) 6 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that the income and profits of agricultural cooperatives shall be exempted from the corporate tax and the business tax. Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the corporate tax shall be imposed on the income enumerated in each subparagraph of the same Article, and Article 41 of the same Act provides that the corporate tax shall be imposed as corporate tax when any of the grounds specified in each subparagraph of the same Article and each subparagraph exists, and it can be known that the so-called additional tax under the same Act is a kind of corporate tax. Thus, it cannot be imposed on the plaintiff association exempt from the corporate tax. Thus, the above imposition disposition of corporate tax against the plaintiff association of the defendant cannot be viewed

Therefore, the defendant collected the above corporate tax without any legal ground from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above corporate tax from the plaintiff 2,069,907 won which was unjustly charged to the plaintiff and 1,550,916 won which was the next day from January 23, 1974 which was the next day from which the above tax was paid, from March 7, 1974 for 19,366 won, from March 9, 194 for 194,498 won, from July 9, 1974 for 36,234 won from August 4, 1974 for 36,234 won, from September 4, 1974 to the full payment of 8,893 won, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is justified by applying Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the plaintiff's appeal as well as the decision of the court below.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)