Whether additional dues on refund of customs duties are paid at the time of the enforcement of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 3666 of Dec. 29, 1983) (affirmative)

The former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 3666 of Dec. 29, 1983) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11286 of Dec. 29, 1983) have no provision on refund of erroneously paid customs duties, such as Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but there is no reasonable ground to distinguish national taxes and customs duties from refund of erroneously collected customs duties and there is no provision on the law only for refund of erroneously paid customs duties (the current Customs Act newly established the provision on refund of erroneous customs duties). Thus, the refund of overpaid customs duties should be paid from the following day to the payment of refund duties by applying mutatis mutandis the provision on refund of erroneously paid customs duties under the Framework Act on National Taxes (the current Customs Act newly established the provision on refund of erroneous customs duties).

Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 30 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 24-3 of the Customs Act

1. The term "legal representative" means the legal representative

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3499 delivered on February 1, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff imported medicines and manufacturing machinery as stated in the judgment of August 11, 1980, which had a significant and long-term number of evidence, and had a voluntary declaration and payment of customs duties, defense taxes, value-added taxes, etc. on them, and the head of Incheon Customs Office issued 26,09,616 won of customs duties, special consumption tax, defense tax 17,25,746 won, value-added tax 8,351,877 won which were imposed on the plaintiff by the 20th day after the date of the disposition of imposition of the above additional tax, and the amount of the above additional tax imposed on the 15th day after the 20th day after the 198th day after the 20th day after the 198th day after the 20th day after the 196th day after the 20th day after the 19th day after the 20th day after the 19th day after the 20th day after the 19th day after the 3th day after the revocation.

However, according to Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases of national tax refund due to revocation or modification of a disposition of imposition, the interest rate of 100 won shall be added to the refund 100 won per day from the day following the day when the refund was made. However, the former Customs Act and its Enforcement Decree, which was enforced at the time of the refund of the customs duties in question, do not have any provision concerning additional dues for refund in cases of refund of the customs duties in excess of the amount of national taxes, and there is no reasonable ground to distinguish national taxes and customs duties from the refund of the customs duties in excess of the amount of refund of the customs duties in excess of the amount of national taxes and there is no provision concerning the law only for refund of the customs duties in excess of the amount of refund (the current Customs Act newly established a provision on additional dues in accordance with the provisions on additional dues in the Framework Act on National Taxes)

Therefore, the court below's decision that the refund of customs duties overpaid or erroneously paid should be made without any legal basis from the day after the disposition agency's good faith and bad faith as to the scope of the refund, is erroneous and incomplete. However, the result that the refund should be paid from the day after the payment of the refund is justified. Thus, the argument on this point is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 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.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)