If the provisional payment without legitimate notification is appropriated to a fine or a surcharge and has been reverted to the National Treasury, this will result in the benefit of the country without legal cause.

If the provisional payment without legitimate notification is appropriated for a fine or a surcharge and has been reverted to the National Treasury, it is already lost in the nature of the provisional payment, which is benefit of the State without legal cause.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1598 delivered on June 26, 1970

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of litigation arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

First, we examine the plaintiffs' ground of appeal No. 1.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that as to the amount of a fine paid in advance by Plaintiff 1 and the amount equivalent to the surcharge paid by Plaintiff 2, 545,408, and the amount equivalent to the surcharge, 303,006, an amount equivalent to the fine paid in advance by Plaintiff 2, as well as the amount equivalent to the surcharge, can not be asserted as unjust enrichment and can not be claimed against the defendant since the notification disposition pursuant to Article 239(1) of the Customs Act at the Seoul Customs Office was not delivered to the plaintiffs and became effective because it did not bring about a legal effect. However, according to the records, the defendant's argument is that in the Seoul Customs Office, the Seoul Customs Office made legitimate notification to the plaintiffs and appropriated the amount equivalent to the fine and the surcharge for the plaintiffs to the National Treasury from the amount paid in advance. Thus, this has already lost the nature of the provisional surcharge and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs were appropriated as a fine or the surcharge without due cause, and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the payment was still made in Seoul Customs.

Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant performer.

In light of the records and the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below's decision that the notice disposition against the plaintiffs in Seoul Customs office did not take effect in the absence of the service of the notice disposition is justified and the collection charge referred to in Article 239 (1) and (2) of the former Customs Act at the time of this case refers to the collection charge in accordance with Article 212 (1) of the former Customs Act, and it is obvious by the regulations itself that it is not related to the goods tax and the special duty. Thus, the reason for the original judgment to this effect is justified and the provision of Article 31 (1) 7 of the former Act is not related to the disposal of the provisional payment under Article 239 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, and the imposition of the goods tax and the special tax can be replaced by the notice disposition under Article 239 (1) of the former Customs Act, and it is therefore unreasonable to see any appeal or appeal.

For the reasons above, the part of the original judgment against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the original judgment is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal arising from the defendant's appeal are assessed against the defendant. It

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)