Seoul High Court 2010Nu31906 (Law No. 12, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2008Du3446 ( October 16, 2009)

Interest payment constitutes approval of debt, and extinctive prescription is interrupted as it reaches approval of debt.

The act of electronically processing that interest is paid on a deposit before five years have passed from the date of the final transaction constitutes the approval of the obligation, and the approval of the obligation has reached since the deposit price can be confirmed by the balance inquiry, etc., and thus, the extinctive prescription of the dormant deposit has not been completed.

2011Du9157 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Corporate Tax Correction

XX Co., Ltd

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu31906 Decided April 12, 2011

November 29, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3

Approval as a ground for interruption of prescription is established when an obligor, who is a party to the benefit of prescription, expresses that the obligor is aware of the existence of the right to the obligor or his/her agent, who is a party to the benefit of prescription. In this case, the method of indication does not require any form, but does not require any explicit or implied case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da947, Apr. 14, 1992). The effect of interruption of prescription due to approval takes place when the obligor is placed in an objective state where the content of approval can be known in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da31281, Nov. 25, 1997).

The court below cited the judgment of the court of first instance. ① The plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax by adding the total amount of 00 won of the dormant deposits (five years after the maturity date and the last transaction date) generated in the business year 2002 through 2006 to the gross income for the business year 2006. ② The defendant included the total amount of 00 won of the dormant deposits generated in the business year 2002 through 2005 to the gross income in each business year, and corrected the tax base and tax amount by adding 00 won to the gross income in the business year 2006. ③ The plaintiff included the dormant deposit in the gross income solely on the ground that the expiration of the extinctive prescription period was unfair, and requested for correction to refund KRW 00,000 among the dormant deposits generated in the business year 206 through the determination of the Tax Tribunal, but the defendant rejected the request by the customer for correction after calculating the amount of 200,000 won of the deposit deposit in the Internet (hereinafter referred to as “the deposit bank in this case”).

Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s act of making a regular payment of interest on the deposit before five years elapse from the final transaction date as the interest on the deposit account is unlawful on the ground that it constitutes the Plaintiff’s recognition of the existence of the deposit claim based on the premise that the Plaintiff is aware of the existence of the deposit claim based on the deposit account. The deposit owner can confirm the fact of the payment of interest by visiting the place of business or making a balance settlement through Internet banking, etc., and as such, the notification of the approval of the obligation reaches the deposit owner, and thus, the Plaintiff’s notification of the approval of the obligation reaches the deposit owner. Therefore, on the ground that the said dormant deposit is not

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant provisions and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is acceptable as it is in accordance with the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acceptance of debt and the arrival of declaration of intent, as otherwise

2. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The subject-matter of a lawsuit of this case is legitimate in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2006, and it cannot be said that there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the dormant deposit can be included in the gross income after the business year 2006, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the ground of appeal on

3. As to the fifth ground for appeal

As seen earlier, inasmuch as the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff approved the Plaintiff’s obligation and the extinctive prescription of a dormant deposit was not completed, the legitimacy of the part that the lower court, on the premise that the extinctive prescription has expired, cannot be deemed as having been completed on a family basis, to the extent that the effectiveness of the extinctive prescription cannot be deemed to have been considerably mature and fixed to the extent that it is reasonable to recognize the completion of extinctive

4. Conclusion

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