The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

As in the instant case, only seeking confirmation of the existence of a refund claim cannot be seen as a final resolution method of a dispute, and thus, there is no interest in confirmation of the instant lawsuit.

Article 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015. Confirmation of refund money, etc.

O Industry Co., Ltd.

Korea

December 24, 2015

2016.02.18

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On June 30, 1993, the Defendant confirmed that there was KRW 00,000,000 (including interest) for the corporate tax reduced to KRW 0,000,000,000 for the principal tax due to the sale of ○○○○-dong, 25-6, and 20, and ○○-dong, 27-1, and one parcel owned by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

On July 1, 1981, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of coal mine operation and the coal-free coal processing business, and operated the business of manufacturing and selling coal at the ○○○○○○○-dong 45, ○○○○, ○5, ○○○, ○○-dong, △△△, which was located in the BB mining center located in 47, △△-dong, △△, △△, on January 1, 1993, and the Enforcement Rule of the Organization of the National Tax Service and its affiliated organizations was amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 150 on July 1, 200, the △△△ Tax Office succeeded to the authority of the head of △△△ District Tax Office, and the head of △△ District Tax Office succeeded to the authority of the △△ Tax Office on July 1, 200. hereinafter the above incorporation and the report on the closure of business around April 30, 1993.

B. The taxation process against the plaintiff

1) On October 13, 1992, the Plaintiff sold to D Construction Co., Ltd. the land owned by the Plaintiff, ○○○○ EE-dong 25-6 large 241m2, and 20m20,000,000 won for purchase and sale (hereinafter “E-dong land owned by the Plaintiff”) and one parcel, other than the above EE-dong 27-1 large 93m2,000,000,000 won for purchase and sale (hereinafter “the sales contract in this case”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the E-dong land owned by the Plaintiff to D Construction Co., Ltd. on November 30, 1992.

2) On March 1, 1993, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of the EEdong land owned by the Plaintiff as KRW 00 billion, and the acquisition value as KRW 00 million.

3) At the time of the above report, the head of △△ District Tax Office: (a) deemed gains on the transfer of the land and other land owned by the Plaintiff (which is the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by the Plaintiff that is separate from the land owned by the Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned and other land”); and (b) imposed KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”) totaling KRW 0,000,000,000 for corporate tax for year 192 (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff-owned and other land”).

4) On April 19, 195, 1995, the head of ○○○○○-gu, ○○○○○○○, 664.2 square meters, etc., owned by attached FF industry and urged the payment of delinquent tax amount, if the said FF industry did not pay KRW 0,00,000,000, out of the corporate tax amount in 1992, the FF industry was the second taxpayer of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “F industry”).

5) As the Plaintiff was unable to partially perform its obligations under the instant sales contract, 00 billion won was reduced from May 7, 1995. The FF industry demanded the head of △△ District Tax Office to reduce the corporate tax for the year 192 by reflecting the reduction of 0 billion won on May 26, 1995. On June 30, 1995, the head of △△△ District Tax Office revised the corporate tax for the year 1992 in the aggregate of KRW 0,000,000,000,000 as principal tax for the E-dong land and other land gains from transfer (hereinafter referred to as “second disposition”).

6) By July 1, 1995, the FF industry paid the Plaintiff’s total amount of delinquent corporate tax in 1992 to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the payment of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax in arrears. The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the FF industry was notified on July 3, 1995 that the FF industry released the attachment of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax from the FF industry, “cash payment and correction of the Plaintiff’s amount of delinquent corporate tax in arrears in 0,000,000,000 won.”

7) From March 197, 1997, with respect to the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax for the portion of 1992 portion, the head of Gun/Gu shall apply the special deduction of capital gains to only KRW 000,000,000 of the acquisition value of the land owned by the Plaintiff. The special deduction of capital gains shall be calculated from KRW 000,000 to KRW 00,000,000, and the gains from transfer shall be deemed as KRW 00,000,000 of the capital gains tax for the portion of 1992, deeming the capital gains as the principal tax for the portion of 1992 amount as KRW 0,00,000,000 of the additional tax, and the amount shall be adjusted as KRW 0,000,000,000 of the above amount to the Plaintiff.

was imposed.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the purchase price under the instant sales contract was reduced to KRW 0 billion, and real estate subject to sale under the instant sales contract includes land owned by Park Dong-dong equivalent to KRW 00 billion, the purchase price for the land owned by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 00 billion, and the head of △△ District Tax Office shall impose KRW 000,000,000,000 as corporate tax on the Plaintiff following the sale of land owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won as corporate tax from the sale of land owned by the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, with regard to the sales contract of this case, the head of △△ District Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff the total of KRW 0,000,000,000 as the principal tax for the year 192, and KRW 0,000,000,000 as the penalty tax for the year 192, and collected all of them until July 1, 1995.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 00,000,000 to the Plaintiff for 829-day interest from July 1, 1995 to July 30, 1997, the sum of KRW 00,000,000,000 for corporate tax collected in excess of the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant did not refund the above refund money to the plaintiff until now, and did not appropriate the above refund money to pay other corporate tax in arrears to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks to confirm that there exists 00,000 won of the refund money to be refunded as above against the defendant.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit in confirmation.

On the other hand, when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous, it is recognized that it is the most effective and appropriate means to get a judgment in order to eliminate such unstable and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous, and to file a lawsuit claiming performance, it is not a final solution of the dispute, and therefore there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

As to this case, it appears that it was the most effective and appropriate means for the Plaintiff to request the payment of the amount equivalent to corporate tax overpaid or erroneously paid to the Defendant. As to this case, the Plaintiff merely sought confirmation of the existence of refund claim as to this case does not have any interest in confirmation since it cannot be seen as a final settlement method of dispute. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is in interest in confirmation of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, it is deemed unlawful as follows: ① the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the above facts, i.e., the statement of No. 1 and No. 2 through No. 7, and the purport of all pleadings from 00 to 195, 200 won, i.e., the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of 0,000 won, which was 0,000 won, from 60 to 1, 1995, 200,000 won, 20,000 won, which were the Plaintiff’s tax office’s claim for the above disposition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.