The Defendants are obviously liable to pay to the Plaintiff since they received the return by mistake from the Plaintiff.

The Defendants clearly received the refund of gift tax and additional refund from the Plaintiff under the pretext of the refund of inheritance tax from the Plaintiff, so the Defendants are obliged to pay the Defendants the refund money of this case to the Plaintiff due to the return of unjust enrichment.

2011 Doz. 14545 Undue profit

Korea

GAA 4 others

March 13, 2012

April 5, 2012

1. The Plaintiff shall pay each of the 58,473,158 won to the Plaintiff, Defendant AA, and HCC, and DD, to each of the OO members, Defendant AE shall be 5% per annum from March 11, 2009 to November 30, 201, and 20% per annum from December 1, 201 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 shall be provisionally executed.

same as the description (the "OOl" appears to be a clerical error of the "OOl".

1. Basic facts

(a) Refund due to the imposition and correction of inheritance tax;

1) As the father of the Defendants died, the director of the Nam Daegu District Tax Office notified the Defendant of the imposition of the KRW OO of the inheritance tax on August 1, 1996, which is a forest FF and the Defendants, who are common partners. By September 30, 1996, the amount of the inheritance tax and the additional dues was collected from the Defendants until April 1, 2002, the OOOF and the Defendants collected the inheritance tax and the additional dues. The final collected by the director of the tax office of Nam Daegu District Tax Office did not refund the gift tax refund and the refund amount to be refunded to the FF and the refund amount to be refunded to the OOO, but instead appropriated for the inheritance tax pursuant to Article 51 (2) of this Act, which is a national tax.

2) The above disposition of inheritance tax was corrected seven times until December 23, 2002. On October 1, 2008, the director of the tax office in Daegu issued the 8th corrective disposition for the reduction of the OO won from the notified amount of the 7th corrective disposition again (hereinafter referred to as the "8th corrective disposition"). Accordingly, the sum that the heir of YG should have been refunded to OO ( = refund OO + additional OOwon) was the sum that the director of the tax office in Daegu and the director of the tax office in South Daegu refunded the above OOO (hereinafter referred to as the "the tax refund of this case").

3) However, the director of the tax office of Daegu demanded on November 17, 2008 and December 2, 2008, 2008, that the refund of the national tax in this case was re-calculated according to the heir's inheritance shares, and thereafter, that the O0 won (=O0 won - OOO0 won, hereinafter referred to as "the excess refund in this case") that was paid in excess of the OF's inheritance shares was paid to OF. However, the OF did not comply with this.

B. Establishment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment and the refund of the Defendants

1) On the other hand, on February 25, 2004, FF filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment by this Court 2004Gahap2148. This court rendered a judgment that "the Defendant (FF) shall pay to the Plaintiff (FF) the amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 5, 2007 to the full payment date" on the ground that the payment of additional dues and additional additional dues based on the second correction of the inheritance tax constituted unjust enrichment. The judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on December 31, 2008 after the final appeal.

2) The director of the South Daegu District Tax Office intended to pay the remainder of the OOOF after deducting the KRW OO of the instant excessive refund from the total sum of the principal and interest of the instant unjust enrichment judgment. However, upon refusing the receipt, the FOF deposited the above OO won on December 18, 2008 with pride No. 5998 of this Court on December 18, 2008. On March 11, 2009, the director of the Nam Daegu District Tax Office refunded to the Defendants the amount equivalent to the Defendants’ inheritance shares among the national tax refund of this case. The details are as shown below (hereinafter referred to as “money refunded to the Defendants”).

(The following table omitted):

C. Plaintiff’s lawsuit of demurrer against the FF

1) From among the judgment amount based on the judgment of unjust enrichment of this case, HF claimed for the payment of the above OOO and its delay damages which were not paid after deducting the Plaintiff, but rejected the claim. On October 7, 2009, HF applied for compulsory execution with the execution title with the judgment of pride on unjust enrichment of this case as the enforcement title.

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff brought an objection to a claim seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the judgment on unjust enrichment of this case by the court 2009Gahap13297, on the ground that the amount of judgment based on the judgment on pride of unjust enrichment of this case was paid in full (hereinafter “instant claim objection lawsuit”). Meanwhile, on February 9, 2010 where the instant lawsuit is pending, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the lawsuit with this court as the defendant, and the duplicate of the application was delivered to the Defendants around that time. However, the Defendants did not participate in the instant claim objection lawsuit, but did not participate in the lawsuit.

3) Details of the judgment in the instant lawsuit seeking objection (including the judgment of the appellate court)

① Since a disposition of reducing or correcting inheritance tax is partially cancelled, inheritance tax equivalent to the reduced amount becomes nonexistent retroactively. On the other hand, in the event that the refund of national tax is appropriated, where there is no tax claim subject to heating, or where the refund of national tax is invalidated or cancelled on the other hand, the taxpayer is entitled to claim the refund of national tax already determined at any time by asserting that there is no effect of appropriation for such appropriation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of appropriating the refund of gift tax and OOO for additional refund on the inheritance tax of this case on a largeF as above becomes retroactively null and void within the scope of the OO of the inheritance tax reduced by the 8th corrective disposition, and where a part of the disposition of imposing inheritance tax is revoked due to the reduction of inheritance tax after being appropriated for the refund of gift tax, the partially revoked inheritance tax does not exist from the beginning and thus becomes null and void. Accordingly, it is a claim for refund of gift tax, not a claim for refund of inheritance tax.

② Therefore, the portion of the inheritance tax reduction pursuant to the 8th corrective disposition should be refunded in such a way that the gift tax refund appropriated for that portion should be returned to the FF. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s refund of the national tax refund of this case that the Plaintiff returned to FF was duly returned, and the Plaintiff’s refund claim (in this case, the excess refund refund money) was deducted from the judgment amount of unjust enrichment of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff had the refund claim regarding the portion exceeding the FF’s inheritance share among the refund refund.

③ For this reason, this Court rendered a judgment that the compulsory execution based on the judgment of unjust enrichment in the instant case shall not be permitted only for the portion exceeding the OOO and the damages for delay due to the said judgment. The said judgment became final and conclusive on August 30, 201 through the appellate court and the final appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7 through 16 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants were liable to pay the Plaintiff the gift tax amount to be returned to the Fund to the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the amount of the Defendants’ refund was reduced by inheritance tax according to the 8th correction disposition, and the Defendants were refunded the portion reduced by the 8th correction disposition among the inheritance tax already paid. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants owned the instant refund amount based on a legitimate title.

B. Determination

The wrong notice system provides a third party who has an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit with an opportunity to defend his interests by participating in the lawsuit, and on the other hand, it is established in the lawsuit between the notifying party and the defendant, and on the other hand, for the purpose of disregarding the result of the loss of the accused party in the lawsuit between the notification party and the defendant, and preventing any assertion contrary to the recognition and judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the previous lawsuit. Thus, the defendant's failure to assert in the lawsuit after the date is in violation of the law, which is the basis of the conclusion of the judgment in the previous lawsuit, is contrary to the judgment in the previous lawsuit, and it is against the law and is against the other party's common interest in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu2091, Feb. 25, 1986; 8Da6358, Jun. 25, 1991; 2000Da358, Feb. 25, 1991).

C. Sub-committee

If so, Defendant AA and HB are obligated to return to the Plaintiff money calculated by each of the OO members, Defendant AA and HO members, each OO members, Defendant AE members, and each of them, from March 11, 2009 to November 30, 201, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

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