The State shall pay additional dues for national tax refund after collection by the initial disposition and correction disposition, and it is legitimate to regard the initial date of additional dues as the period of collection.

The amount of property tax that has been reduced from the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax collected by the initial disposition and correction disposition shall be refunded, and it is reasonable to calculate additional charges on the basis of "payment in installments" under the proviso to Article 43-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Additional Payment on National Tax Basic Act Article 43-3

2017 Ghana 5152851 Undue gains

(O) Korea Federation of Cooperatives

Korea

November 30, 2017

December 14, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

For the Plaintiff KRW 140,114,121 and KRW 74,649,360 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 6% per annum from March 29, 2016 to the delivery date of each complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,556,426,270, respectively, on December 14, 2009 and February 16, 2010, according to the disposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax for the Plaintiff of the Defendant (the head of the competent AA) on November 16, 2009, including the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009. Moreover, the Plaintiff reported the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2010 and paid KRW 3,725,078,480 on December 14, 201 and February 15, 201.

B. According to the first disposition on October 29, 2012 issued by the Defendant on the ground of the addition of taxable objects, the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 2,217,560 as the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009 and the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2010, etc. on November 30, 2012 and KRW 2,217,560.

C. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 541,65,05,050 as the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009 on June 13, 2014 and the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2010 on June 15, 2015, based on the following: (a) the Defendant’s second disposition of increase in the size of taxable object and the type of taxation; and (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 559,826,840, respectively.

D. According to the Supreme Court Decision 2015DuO No. 2015 (Seoul Administrative Court No. 2010 OrOO No. 2010) that the plaintiff et al. filed a claim for revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax against AA head of the tax office, the defendant filed a claim for the amount of property tax to be deducted on the ground that the amount of property tax was under-calculated on March 28, 2016: (i) refund money, etc. for comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 209 above; (ii) refund money for the total amount of KRW 51,65,050 on May 23, 2014; (iii) additional refund money for the total amount of KRW 25,535,780; and (iv) refund money for the total amount of KRW 12,65,490 on October 29, 2012; and (iv) additional refund money for the amount of KRW 2050 on the refund money; and (v) additional amount for refund money for the above 20194.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Additional Payment on Refund of National Taxes) refers to cases where payment in installments satisfies the requirements for payment in installments under individual tax laws. The payment following the above 1, 209 through 2010 for comprehensive real estate held in the above 209 through 2010 does not constitute payment in installments. Thus, the above 1, 2, and 1, 2009 and 2, and only part of the payment due to the above 1,209 through 2010 are refunded. Thus, when calculating additional payment in arrears, the Defendant asserts that additional payment in arrears payable to the Plaintiff is KRW 140,114,121, 121, and

3. Determination

Article 43-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the initial date of calculation of additional charges for national tax refund prescribed by Presidential Decree" shall be the date following the date classified as follows: 1. National tax refund due to erroneous or double payment, or correction or cancellation of a return or imposition that forms the basis of such payment: Provided, That if the national tax refund was paid in two or more installments, it shall be the last payment date, but if the national tax refund exceeds the last payment, it shall be the due date of each national tax payment calculated retroactively in the order of due dates until it reaches such due amount. The refund of national tax shall be the due date of each national tax refund computed retroactively in the order of due dates until it reaches the due amount. Thus, the refund of national tax shall be deemed to fall under unjust enrichment received by the State without legal grounds or even after the tax liability expires, and the provisions of the tax law on the contents of additional charges shall be deemed to have the nature of special provisions on the return of unjust enrichment under Article 748 of the Civil Act. Thus, the second installment payment of the national tax refund shall be deemed to have no longer the initial payment of taxes pursuant to the proviso of Article 13.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.