[1] The standard for determining whether a taxpayer’s filing of a tax return constitutes an obligatory invalidation in a tax return method

[2] In a case where the imposition of excess ownership charges, the attachment disposition, and the attachment registration based thereon are made before the decision of unconstitutionality as to the whole Act on the Ownership of the Housing Site becomes final and conclusive, whether the public sale disposition conducted after the decision of unconstitutionality is void as a matter of course (affirmative) and the validity of the registration of transfer of ownership based on

[3] The case holding that the act of voluntary report and payment of capital gains tax following the public sale after the decision of unconstitutionality as to the whole Act on the Ownership of the former Housing Site and the transfer of ownership as a result thereof cannot be deemed as a grave and obvious defect and thus, it cannot be

[1] As a matter of principle, a taxpayer's tax liability is specifically determined by his own determination of tax base and amount by filing a return (limited to the case where the tax office does not file a return from the taxpayer), the payment act refers to the performance of specific tax liability determined by the return, and the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the final tax claim as above. Thus, unless the taxpayer's filing act is void as a matter of course due to a significant and obvious defect, it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, as to whether the act of filing a return constitutes invalidation as a matter of course due to a significant and obvious defect, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedies for the act of filing a report should be examined in detail as a basis for the act of filing a return, and at the same time, the specific circumstances leading to the act of filing a return should be determined reasonably and reasonably.

[2] The excess ownership charges under the former Act on the Disposal of National Taxes (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198) are monetary burdens imposed on the violation of the duty under the above Act, not only a kind of tax, but merely a means of coercion to fulfill the purpose of the above Act. Before the repeal of the above Act, the excess ownership charges cannot be collected by force pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act without any legal basis. Article 30 of the above Act provides that "If a person liable to pay the excess ownership charges fails to fully pay the excess ownership charges and additional charges by the designated deadline after receiving a demand notice, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may collect them in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected." However, if the excess ownership charges are opened a way to collect by force pursuant to the provisions on the disposition of delinquent local taxes in Chapter III of the National Tax Collection Act, the above Article 30 of the Act on the Disposal of National Taxes becomes invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality on April 29, 199, as well as the above provisions on the disposition of delinquent local taxes in arrears.

[3] The case holding that the act of voluntary report and payment of capital gains tax following the public sale after the decision of unconstitutionality as to the whole of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site and the transfer of ownership as a result thereof cannot be deemed as a grave and obvious defect and thus, it shall not

[1] Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 30 of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198), Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 30 of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198), Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 19 of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 105 and 106 of the Income Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da31419 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1455), Supreme Court Decision 95Da44917 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2829), Supreme Court Decision 9Da23284 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1778), Supreme Court Decision 99Da11618 delivered on April 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 124)/202Da2294 delivered on April 12, 2002 (Gong202, 207Du32979 delivered on April 27, 2002), Supreme Court Decision 2009Du32979 delivered on June 27, 2002 (Gong2037, Nov. 29, 2002)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys Noh Won-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na6502 delivered on July 9, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

As for taxes in the method of tax payment, in principle, the taxpayer's tax liability is determined specifically by his own determination of tax base and amount and by filing a return (limited to the case where the tax office does not file a return from the taxpayer), its payment act is the performance of specific tax liability confirmed by the return, and the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the final tax claim. Thus, unless the taxpayer's filing act is null and void as a result of a serious and obvious defect, it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment immediately. Here, as to whether a defect in the filing of a return constitutes null and void as a matter of course due to a significant and obvious defect, it shall be reasonably determined by considering the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy, etc. for the filing of the report, which form the basis for the filing of the report, and by individually identifying the specific circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31419, Feb. 28, 195; 9Da11618, Apr. 27, 2001).

The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that there is a significant and apparent defect in the act of voluntarily reporting and paying transfer income tax on the ground that the public sale of this case and the transfer income tax on the defendant's future are null and void, barring special circumstances such as the plaintiffs' voluntary reporting and payment of transfer income tax on the deceased's deceased deceased non-party, even though the head of Gangwon-dong Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea knew such circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant and apparent defect in the act of the deceased's voluntary reporting and payment of transfer income tax on the ground that the transfer income tax is subject to the transfer income tax on the transfer of assets subject to the transfer income tax on the transfer of the above transfer of ownership, and that the Gangwon-dong Tax Office knew the circumstances that the transfer income tax on the plaintiff's future is null and void on the ground of public sale and payment by public sale, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and further, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it specifically by the deceased's voluntary report and payment by the deceased's voluntary report.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, the validity of voluntary payment of capital gains tax, and the misapprehension of legal principles

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The amount of excess ownership under the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 1998) is not a kind of tax, but a monetary burden imposed as a sanction against a breach of duty under the said Act, and is merely a means of coercion to fulfill the purpose of the said Act, and thus, the amount of excess ownership under the National Tax Collection Act may not be collected compulsorily without any legal basis.

However, prior to the repeal of the above Act, Article 30 provides that "if a person liable to pay the charges for excess ownership in the housing site fails to pay in full the charges for excess ownership and additional dues within the designated period after receiving a demand notice, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may collect them in accordance with the example of disposition on default of national taxes," the Minister of Construction and Transportation opened a path for compulsory collection of the charges for excess ownership in accordance with the provisions on disposition on default of national taxes in Chapter III of the National Tax Collection Act. However, on April 29, 199, the above provisions of Article 30 became invalid due to the decision on unconstitutionality of the entire Act on the Ownership in the housing site, and there are no other legal grounds for compulsory collection of the charges for excess ownership in the housing site. In addition to the above provisions, even if the disposition on imposition of the charges for excess ownership and seizure registration based thereon are already made and confirmed before the above decision on unconstitutionality, it cannot proceed with subsequent disposition such as public sale, which is a separate administrative disposition, and if such disposition is made based on a grave and apparent reason for invalidation of the public sale.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiffs' request for cancellation registration against the defendant is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)