Whether payment should be made by adding repayment interest under Article 46 of the Local Tax Act when the amount erroneously distributed local tax to the legitimate right holder is paid in the procedure of disposition on default (affirmative)

The amount of local tax erroneously distributed in the procedure for disposition on default, regardless of whether it was erroneously distributed or not by the head of a local government through the procedure for disposition on default commenced by him/her, shall be paid by adding repayment interest pursuant to Article 46 of the Local Tax Act to the creditors taking precedence over the local tax in paying the local tax, regardless of whether

Articles 45(1), 46, and 82 of the Local Tax Act; Article 81(5) of the National Tax Collection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2007Da79534 decided Jan. 10, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 204)

Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Yang, Attorneys Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government et al. (Law Firm Chungcheong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na851 decided Oct. 26, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defendants' assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to whether to pay additional dues

Article 81(5) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the head of a tax office shall pay the amount distributed first to the creditor who takes precedence over the national tax refund in cases where he/she distributes the amount of delinquent taxes due to error in distribution order, improper request for delivery and other reasons corresponding to this in the disposition procedure for arrears.Although the creditor has priority over the local tax in the disposition procedure for arrears, the Local Tax Act does not stipulate any provisions concerning refund of the amount erroneously distributed local tax amount in arrears, but Article 82 of the Local Tax Act provides that "the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition and collection of local taxes except as otherwise provided for in this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes." However, Article 81(5) of the Local Tax Act provides that the unpaid local tax which has been overpaid or erroneously paid under Article 45(1) shall be appropriated to other local taxes, etc. and the remaining amount shall be returned without delay to the taxpayer. Thus, the refund of the amount of local tax overpaid or erroneously paid shall take precedence over the refund amount of local tax due to the creditor.

The amount of erroneously distributed local taxes in the procedure of disposition on default, regardless of whether it was erroneously distributed to the head of a local government in the procedure of disposition on default that has already commenced, shall be paid by adding repayment interest under Article 46 of the Local Tax Act to the creditors taking precedence over the local taxes, regardless of whether it was erroneously distributed to the creditors who have already commenced the procedure for disposition on default.

The refund of national or local tax overpaid or erroneously paid is a refund of unjust enrichment received or held by the State or local governments without any legal cause despite the absence of any national or local tax claim or the extinguishment thereof. Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 46 of the Local Tax Act provide that repayment shall be made by adding additional refund or repayment interest to the refund of national or local tax in the disposition procedure for arrears without asking whether the State or local government was negligent in holding the national or local tax refund or erroneous payment. It is the same as that of refund of national or local tax in the disposition for arrears in the disposition procedure for arrears, in that the amount erroneously allocated to the State or local government without any justifiable reason is repaid in the disposition for arrears. For this reason, the purport of the provision of Article 81(5) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the local government’s erroneous payment of repayment interest under the provisions of Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes should be applied to a refund of local tax in the procedure for the disposition for arrears, even if the local government erroneously received the amount of repayment interest from the local government during the disposition procedure for arrears.

원심은 그 채용 증거를 종합하여, ① 원고는 소외 주식회사에 대하여 가지고 있던 채권을 담보하기 위하여 2000. 2. 1. 소외 주식회사 소유의 서울 영등포구 여의도동 (지번 생략) 소재 지하 7층, 지상 37층 주상복합건물(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라 한다)에 관하여 근저당권설정등기를 마친 사실, ② 마포세무서장은 소외 주식회사가 국세를 체납하자 이 사건 부동산을 압류한 후 공매를 실시하여 2001. 12. 13. 이 사건 부동산을 매각하였는데, 원고는 2001. 12. 18. 마포세무서장에게 소외 주식회사에 대한 채권 39,587,909,833원에 관한 채권계산서를 제출하였으며, 그 무렵 영등포구청장, 마포구청장, 영등포세무서장도 마포세무서장에게 각 교부청구를 한 사실, ③ 이에 마포세무서장은 2001. 12. 28. 배분계산서를 작성하여, 위 매각대금에서 제1순위로 체납처분비 26,121,640원을, 제2순위로 최종 3월분의 임금채권 36,961,290원을, 제3순위로 법정기일이 앞서는 압류권자인 마포세무서장에게 4,896,466,400원을, 제4순위로 마포세무서장에게 299,448,568원을, 마포구청장에게 429,024,533원을, 영등포구청장에게 3,631,759,114원을, 영등포세무서장에게 9,112,944원을, 원고에게 7,621,105,511원을 각 배분하는 내용의 공매대금 배분처분을 한 사실, ④ 그 후 원고는 마포세무서장이 원고의 근저당권 설정일보다 후순위인 조세채권에 매각대금을 잘못 배분하였음을 이유로 서울행정법원 2002구합30319호 로 위 배분처분의 취소를 구하는 소를 제기하였는바, 위 법원은 2004. 4. 9. “마포세무서장이 2001. 12. 28. 한 공매대금 배분처분 중 마포세무서장에게 배분한 5,195,914,968원 중 3,880,631,010원을 초과하는 부분, 마포구청장에게 배분한 429,024,533원 중 8,178,330원을 초과하는 부분, 영등포구청장에게 배분한 3,631,759,114원 중 2,660,049,400원을 초과하는 부분, 영등포세무서장에게 배분한 9,112,944원을 각 취소한다.”는 취지의 판결을 선고하였으며, 위 판결은 2005. 11. 24.경 확정된 사실, ⑤ 영등포구청장에 대한 배분이 취소된 금액 중에는 영등포구청장이 서울특별시장으로부터 징수위탁을 받고 수령한 810,218,900원이 포함되어 있었고, 마포구청장에 대한 배분이 취소된 금액은 그 전부가 마포구청장이 서울특별시장으로부터 징수위탁을 받고 수령한 금원인 사실, ⑥ 그 후 대한민국은 2005. 12.경, 피고 서울특별시는 2006. 1. 5.경, 피고 영등포구는 2006. 1. 24.경 각 환급금 지급결정을 한 후, 피고 대한민국은 영등포세무서장 명의로 9,112,944원, 마포세무서장 명의로 1,315,283,950원, 피고 서울특별시는 1,231,068,700원{위 판결에 의하여 취소된 금액 중 피고 서울특별시 관련 부분은 영등포구청장에 대한 배분취소금 중 810,218,900원과 마포구청장에 대한 배분취소금 420,846,203원(원심판결문 12면에는 420,846,403원으로 되어 있으나, 오기로 보인다), 합계 1,231,065,103원이나, 위와 같이 지급함}, 피고 서울특별시 영등포구(이하 ‘피고 영등포구’라 한다)는 161,490,810원을 원고에게 각 지급한 사실, ⑦ 한편, 피고 서울특별시가 원고에게 지급한 금액 중에는 농어촌특별세 등 국세 50,615,510원이 포함되어 있었고, 피고 영등포구가 원고에게 지급한 금액 중에는 교육세, 농어촌특별세 등 국세 27,345,170원과 구세 외 수입 2,537,840원, 감정료 입금액 1,736,900원이 포함되어 있었던 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 피고들은 원고에게 위 반환금 이외 법정이자인 국세기본법 제52조 에 의한 환급가산금을 지급하여야 하는데, 그 반환금은 이득의 주체였던 자가 지급하여야 하므로, 원고에게 피고 영등포구는 구세(구세) 129,870,174원{161,490,814원 - 27,345,170원 - 2,537,840원 - 1,736,900원}에 대하여, 피고 서울특별시는 시세(시세) 1,180,449,593원(1,231,065,103원 - 50,615,510원)에 대하여 각 공매대금을 배분받은 다음날인 2001. 12. 29.부터 환급금 지급결정을 한 2006. 1. 5. 또는 같은 달 24.까지 법령이 정하는 이자율에 따른 환급가산금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

The court below is justified in holding that the defendants should pay the amount of money erroneously distributed through the above disposition procedure to the plaintiff with interest added to each Gu tax (Gu tax) or Si tax (Si tax) in addition to statutory interest added thereto. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 81 (5) of the National Tax Collection Act as alleged in the grounds of appeal

However, in light of the above legal principles, the court below erred in holding that the above KRW 129,870,174 and KRW 1,180,449,593 should be added not to the repayment interest under Article 46 of the Local Tax Act, but to the additional payment on the refund of national taxes under Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, the court below erred in holding that the additional payment on the refund of national taxes should be added to the amount of KRW 129,870,174 and KRW 1,180,49,593, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17447 of December 31, 2001 and enforced January 1, 2002 under Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 30 (2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which was applied to the defendants' repayment interest rate of KRW 129,870,174 and KRW 1,80,493, respectively.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the assertion on the urban planning tax and common facilities tax of Defendant Yeongdeungpo-gu

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit to find facts within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)