Whether the national tax paid by subrogation of a delinquent taxpayer constitutes unjust enrichment

The case holding that the national tax paid by the plaintiff in subrogation of the delinquent taxpayer cannot be deemed as the defendant's unjust enrichment.

Article 47 of the National Tax Collection Act

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 4, 2004, with respect to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, 1,593.7 square meters and its underground floors, and the 4th floor above (hereinafter each of the instant real estate) owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○○○○”).

B. At the time of the registration of transfer of ownership, the head of ○○○ Tax Office completed the registration of seizure on February 26, 2004 (hereinafter the seizure of this case) in order to collect national taxes in arrears with respect to each of the instant real estate at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership. As of September 18, 2002, on September 26, 2002, ○○ Bank, ○○○○○ Bank, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 280,000,000, and △△△ Bank, the debtor, the debtor, the debtor, the ○○△△△△△△△ Bank, the debtor, the 247,000,000, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 247,000,000, respectively, was completed on January 8, 2004.

C. The Plaintiff:

(1) On July 24, 2004, 14.00 billion won was paid to the ○○○○○ Tax Office, and ○○○○○ Mar. 24, 2004, 1) paid 7,025,480 won for the first term of July 25, 2003 and additional 978,270 won for the first term of July 25, 2003 and 2) paid 5,231,440 won for the corporate tax of October 103, 201 (the additional 7,250 won was paid on July 27, 200, as seen thereafter) and additional 764,810 won for the first term of July 27, 2004, 205; and

(2) On July 27, 2004, KRW 6,000 shall be paid to the ○○ Tax Office (2) and KRW 7,250 of the corporate tax omitted in the above (3) and KRW 5,201,720 of the value-added tax of KRW 7,75680 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 7,75680 for the second period of value-added tax of October 25, 2003 (the 2,553,960 of the difference was additionally paid on September 16, 2004) and the additional dues of KRW 791,030 for the total amount of KRW 5,92,750 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 2,75680 for the following period:

(3) On September 16, 2004, the amount of KRW 102,910,70 was paid to the ○○○○ Tax Office. (5) The amount of KRW 2,53,960 omitted value-added tax and additional dues of KRW 61,280, total amount of KRW 2,615,240, and KRW 61,280, total of KRW 2,615,240 omitted value-added tax, 6,888,320, and additional dues of KRW 619,890, total of KRW 7,508,210, and KRW 7,210, KRW 30, KRW 205, KRW 207, KRW 296, KRW 290, KRW 340, KRW 540, KRW 205, KRW 205, KRW 305, KRW 36,540, KRW 3645,2015, KRW 363636, etc.

[7] Each statutory date of the national tax in arrears (7) provides that the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be deemed to be subject to income tax, and the corporation paying the amount of income disposed of as dividends, cash, and other income under the Corporate Tax Act shall be bound to collect it in its original name, and the corporation shall notify the relevant corporation of the income amount disposed of as dividends, cash, and other income subject to withholding in the form of "Notice of Change of Income Amount", and as such, the relevant dividend, cash, and other income stated in the notice of change of income amount shall be deemed to have been paid on the date of receipt of the notice, and shall be deemed to have established the liability to pay the income tax withheld at the same time, and shall be determined simultaneously (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878, Apr. 20,

D. On the same day, when the national tax in arrears was fully paid by ○○ Marart, the Defendant released the seizure of this case (the registration of this case was cancelled on September 20, 2004) and △ Bank’s repayment period of KRW 80 million against the Plaintiff was extended from September 7, 2004 to September 7, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute over some facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1 to 9, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. Of the delinquent national taxes paid by the Plaintiff, KRW 92,787,250 won (i.e., KRW 7,509,630 + KRW 71,04,100 + KRW 14,233,520) of the total amount of each national tax and additional dues paid by the Plaintiff (i.e., the total amount of KRW 7,509,630 + KRW 14,233,520) was not effective at the time when the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each real estate of this case.

B. Nevertheless, the public official in charge of the ○○ Tax Office may release the seizure of this case only if he pays all the national taxes in arrears within the scope of the ○○ Tax Office, and △△ Bank, which had been holding loan claims against the Plaintiff at the time, could not extend the period of repayment unless the seizure of this case is cancelled. In addition, if the period of repayment of the above loan is not extended, the Plaintiff was also faced with the failure to pay the loan due to the shortage of the relevant current loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff borrowed bonds 10 million won without any choice, and paid the above tax amount in arrears by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment because the plaintiff's withdrawal gains 92,787,250 won of the above tax amount from the plaintiff's withdrawal without any legal ground. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, the plaintiff suffered losses from the payment of the above tax amount by coercion by a public official in charge of ○○ Tax Office. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff as compensation for the tort by the public official in charge.

3. Judgment of party members

A. 7 As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on national taxes in arrears

According to Article 47 of the National Tax Collection Act, the attachment of national taxes in arrears shall have the effect on the delinquent amount of national taxes for which the statutory due date under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has come before the ownership of the attached property is transferred, and the attachment of national taxes for which the statutory due date has not arrived before the transfer of the attached property shall not have the effect.

The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff acquired ownership on March 26, 2004 with respect to each of the instant real estate, and that the above 7th statutory due date of the delinquent national tax has arrived. As seen earlier, the statutory due date of each of the instant delinquent national taxes is March 12, 2003.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff seeks to pay the above amount of national tax in arrears as the return of unjust enrichment or compensation for damages on different premises is without merit.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on national taxes in arrears

(1) The statutory deadline for delinquent national taxes (14,233,520 won) is April 25, 2004 as seen earlier, and thus, the attachment of this case does not have the effect.

(2) However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, at the time of paying the above delinquent national tax, the Plaintiff already knew that the effect of the attachment of this case does not extend to each real estate of this case with respect to the delinquent national tax. Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid the above delinquent national tax. Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have paid the above delinquent national tax by subrogation of ○○ Marart.

For this reason, the plaintiff asserts that he paid the above delinquent national tax against his will, so it is difficult to view that he paid the above delinquent national tax merely for the extension of the repayment period of the above loan, in light of the circumstances where the plaintiff did not submit any data as to the extension of the payment period of the loan granted by other financial institutions, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this as seen below (3). The part that the plaintiff extended the repayment period of each loan granted by financial institutions, such as △△ Bank, including the same day. <7, 8, 92,787,250, the total amount of each delinquent tax is higher than 80,000,000,000, △△△△ Bank's loan that the plaintiff paid the above delinquent tax and received the extension of the payment period of the loan. Thus, it is difficult to accept in light of the circumstances that the plaintiff did not have submitted any data as to the extension of the payment period of the loan granted by other financial institutions. There is no evidence to find otherwise that the defendant committed unjust enrichment by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff paid the above delinquent national tax on behalf of ○○ Marart. 1, 200. Therefore, the prior plaintiff's request for return of unjust enrichment on a different premise is groundless.

(3) Furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that a public official in charge of ○○ Tax Office forced the Plaintiff to pay the national tax in arrears only with the testimony of the ○○○ witness at the first instance trial on this part of the claim for damages, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages in this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.