[1] Whether a tax authority's rejection rejection response against a tax authority's request for correction that is not based on the tax law of the taxpayer can be deemed a rejection disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[2] Whether the determination of refund of national taxes under Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or the determination of rejection of a request for refund of national taxes can be seen as a disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

[3] Whether interest income tax can be levied under Article 16 (1) 13 of the former Income Tax Act even if the income is not listed in Article 16 (1) 1 through 12 of the same Act after January 1, 2002 (affirmative with qualification)

[4] The case holding that among the excess repayment from a workplace mutual-aid association, the amount of installment payments paid before the member's retirement or withdrawal and the amount of total welfare benefits shall be subject to taxation of interest income tax after the establishment of Article 16 (1) 13 of the former Income Tax Act

[1] Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes or individual tax-related Acts, the right to request correction can not be acknowledged. Thus, even if the tax authority rejected a request for correction that is not based on the tax-related Acts of the person liable for payment, it cannot be viewed as a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal.

[2] If a withholding agent collects and pays the amount of tax on income which is not subject to withholding from a source taxpayer or in excess of the amount of tax to be collected, the State shall make unjust enrichment from the withholding agent without any legal ground. Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) merely stipulate the procedures for refund by the tax authorities as internal procedures for handling the national tax refund and additional dues for which the claim for refund has become final and conclusive, and it is not confirmed that the claim for refund can only be made by the national tax refund (including additional dues) decision. Thus, the determination of national tax refund or the rejection of the request for refund cannot be deemed a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the taxpayer's claim for refund, and thus cannot be deemed a disposition that becomes the object of appeal litigation.

[3] Article 16 (1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001); Article 16 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006); Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 814 of Dec. 30, 2006); Article 16 (1) 13 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that even if income is not included in the scope of interest income enumerated in subparagraphs 1 through 12 of the same Article, if it is similar to the above income, it can be interpreted that if it is not listed in the existing method of taxation on income subject to the taxation of interest income, it can be interpreted that Article 16 (1) 13 of the former Income Tax Act should be amended by including it in accordance with the principle of fair taxation of income (Article 1614).

[4] The case holding that since the excess repayment from a workplace mutual-aid association is similar in nature to the "interest on deposits" under Article 16 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) and the amount added to the comprehensive welfare benefits paid before the member's retirement or withdrawal is equal in tax-bearing capacity, among the excess repayment from a workplace mutual-aid association, it shall be subject to taxation of interest income tax after the establishment of Article 16 (1) 13 of the same Act.

[1] Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 51 (1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006), Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 16 (1) 3 and 11 (see current Article 16 (1) 10) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001), Article 16 (1) 13 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 206), Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act / [4] Article 16 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2006; see current Article 16 (136 (1) 4)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du9608 delivered on July 23, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1817) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7993 Delivered on May 11, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 1059) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7651 Delivered on May 12, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2132 Delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2733) (Gong201Du8780 Delivered on November 26, 2009) (Gong2007Du40108 delivered on November 26, 2009)

Korean Teachers' Credit Union (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Han-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office (Attorney Han-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu31640 decided August 10, 2007

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part concerning the collection and disposition of interest income tax in the separate sheet and the part concerning the imposition of corporate tax in the business year 2002 and 2003 are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes or individual tax-related Acts, a correction claim right under cooking cannot be acknowledged. Thus, even if the tax authority rejected a correction claim that is not based on the tax-related Acts of the person liable for payment, it cannot be viewed as a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7651, May 12, 2006, etc.). In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that even if the defendant rejected the plaintiff's correction claim based on the right to request correction based on the right to request correction under the cooking, it does not constitute a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and there is no error in the misapprehension

B. If a withholding agent collects and pays the amount of tax on any income which is not subject to withholding from a withholding agent or in excess of the amount of tax to be collected from a withholding agent, the State shall make unjust enrichment from the withholding agent without any legal ground, and Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) provide for the procedures for refund by the tax authorities as an internal procedures for handling the national tax refund and additional dues for which the claim for refund has become final and conclusive, and the claim for refund cannot be confirmed only by the national tax refund (including additional dues) decision. Thus, the determination of national tax refund or the refusal of refund to the request for this decision cannot be deemed a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the taxpayer's claim for refund, and thus, it cannot be deemed a disposition that becomes the object of appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8780, Nov. 8, 2002).

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Article 16 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter the same) provides that "interest income shall be the income falling under any of the following subparagraphs generated during the pertinent year." Article 3 provides that "interest and discount amount of deposits (including installment savings, installment savings, deposits, and postal transfer) received in the Republic of Korea," and Article 16 (1) 11 provides that "excess repayment from a workplace mutual aid association as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be listed. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "necessary matters concerning the scope of interest income under the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree." However, the amended Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) amended on December 31, 2001 refers to the income of Article 13 of the Income Tax Act, which is similar to that of a workplace mutual aid association pursuant to Article 16 (1) 16 (2) through (1) of the Enforcement Decree.

In full view of the language, legislative purport and amendment process of each of the above provisions, and the purport of newly establishing subparagraph 13 of this case, in particular, even if the interest income listed in subparagraphs 1 through 12 is not included in the scope of the interest income subject to taxation pursuant to subparagraphs 1 through 12, if the consideration is given as a result of the use of money, it shall be included in the income subject to taxation of interest income, thereby supplementing to a certain extent the disadvantages of the previous listing method concerning the income subject to taxation, thereby realizing the principle of fair taxation. In full view of the above, even if the income does not fall under the income listed in subparagraphs 1 through 12 after January 1, 202 when the provision of this case enters into force, if such nature is similar and equal, it shall be interpreted that the income tax can be imposed pursuant to subparagraph 13 if it can be deemed that the income

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the Plaintiff's articles of incorporation, the Plaintiff's capital consists of charges deposited by members, such as former and incumbent public educational officials, and net income accrued from government subsidies and businesses. The Plaintiff's payment of long-term savings benefits, retirement benefits, and comprehensive welfare benefits, etc. shall be paid at the time of retirement or withdrawal of members, and long-term savings benefits shall be paid at the time of member's retirement or withdrawal by adding an additional amount calculated at the rate reflecting the average interest rate of one-year term deposit in commercial banks. The Plaintiff's payment of money, retirement benefits, and comprehensive welfare benefits shall be paid at the agreed time before member's retirement or withdrawal, and the amount calculated by adding an additional amount calculated at the rate above 0.5%, which is the average interest rate of one-year term deposit in five commercial banks, shall not be deemed to fall under the Plaintiff's payment of interest income and comprehensive welfare benefits as stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the former Depositor Protection Act, and it shall not be deemed to fall under the Plaintiff's payment of additional money in the Plaintiff's deposit and its payment.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that the amount of the surcharge in this case does not fall under the scope of interest income listed in Articles 16 (1) 3 and 11 of the former Income Tax Act, subparagraphs 3 and 11 of the provisions of this case, but it is not acceptable for the following reasons to determine that the surcharge in this case does not fall under the interest income stipulated in subparagraph 13 of the provisions of this case.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff paid the amount calculated by a certain rate of addition according to the prior agreement regardless of the actual results of operation as consideration for the deposit of charges, and the rate of addition was higher than the deposit interest rate. ② Even if the plaintiff's capital was formed, it was returned before the withdrawal of the member, unlike the general capital, and ③ further, the plaintiff's operating method of paying the surcharge with the proceeds from lending it to other members or investing in various kinds of financial products, real estate, etc. is different from that of the bank or other financial institutions. Examining these circumstances in light of the above legal principles, the amount of the surcharge in this case is similar to the deposit interest in subparagraph 3 of the provision in this case as consideration for the use of money, and it can be deemed that the amount of the surcharge in this case is equal to the deposit interest in subparagraph 3 of the provision in this case and its ability to pay it is equal. Thus, it is subject to the interest income tax after the new provision in this case.

Nevertheless, under the premise that the surcharge in this case does not constitute interest income as stipulated in subparagraph 13 of the provision of this case, the court below held that each of the interest income tax collection dispositions in the attached Form corresponding to the period after the establishment of No. 13 and the part on imposition of corporate tax related thereto was unlawful among the defendant's respective interest income tax collection dispositions in this case. The judgment of the court below in this part is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of No. 13 of the provision of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground for

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to the collection disposition of interest income tax and the part concerning the imposition disposition of each corporate tax for the business year of 2002 and 2003, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiff's appeal and the remaining appeal by the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)