[1] The standard for determining whether a taxpayer's act of filing a tax return constitutes the invalidation of a tax due to a significant and apparent defect in tax payment method

[2] In a case where a person liable for duty payment has voluntarily filed a voluntary report on a newly-built building that is subject to tax exemption under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes due to inducement of tax and voluntary report by its staff members and erroneous verification that it is not subject to tax exemption, whether such filing of a report constitutes an act of revocation and prompt preservation of ownership

[1] As for taxes in the form of tax return such as acquisition tax and registration tax, in principle, a taxpayer's tax obligation is specifically determined by his/her act of setting a tax base and amount of tax and his/her act of payment is the performance of specific tax obligation confirmed by his/her return, and the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the tax claim so finalized. Thus, unless the taxpayer's act of filing a tax return is null and void as a result of a serious and obvious defect, it cannot be immediately deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, as to whether the act of filing a tax return constitutes null and void as a matter of course due to a significant and obvious defect, it shall be reasonably determined by individually and reasonably by ascertaining the purpose, meaning

[2] The fact that the Korea Land Corporation temporarily built and temporarily acquired a building for the purpose of supplying it to a third party as an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act is evident, without any room for misunderstanding. In such a case, even though it is apparent under the relevant provisions of the Local Tax Act and the Korea Land Development Corporation Act, it would be subject to exemption from acquisition tax and registration tax under the relevant provisions of the Local Tax Act and the Korea Land Development Corporation Act, there is no room for other construction to interpret otherwise. However, in a case where the said tax was inevitably paid in order to avoid the imposition of additional dues due to failure to pay taxes and to promptly complete registration of preservation of ownership, due to the erroneous verification that it is not subject to the inducement of wrong voluntary declarations and exemption from registration tax

[1] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da31419 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1455), Supreme Court Decision 97Da8427 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3758) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da60363 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 192) 96Da3807 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1531), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4917 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2829)

Korea Land Corporation (former Name: Land Development Corporation) (Attorney Kim Full-seop, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na35516 delivered on April 23, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Article 110-3 (2) 14 and Article 128-2 (2) 14 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same), Articles 79-18 and 98-10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 9 (1) 3 of the former Korea Land Development Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 5109 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply), land and fixtures acquired by the plaintiff for urban redevelopment projects for the purpose of supplying them to a third party according to the plan of the State or local government shall be exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax.

Therefore, the court below decided on March 8, 1984 that the Plaintiff’s new construction of the 1st 20th 6,145 m2th m2 above the 3th 1985 m2nd 4th 7th 1985 m2nd 5st m2nd 301 south m2nd 8,631.4th m2nd 5st m2nd 5st m2nd 198, and was designated as the developer of the above redevelopment project by the Defendant as the 233th m3th m3th m2nd 196th m2nd 67th 196th m2nd 14th m2nd 196th m2nd 196th 196th 196th 196 m2nd 9th 196th 196th 196th 196.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it can be recognized that the employee in charge of taxation in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office has provided administrative guidance as stated in the judgment below. Thus, there is no error of finding facts contrary to the rules of evidence, such as empirical rule, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal

3. On the third ground for appeal

As for taxes in the form of tax return, such as acquisition tax and registration tax, in principle, a taxpayer's tax obligation is specifically determined by his/her own determination of tax base and amount of tax and its payment is the performance of specific tax obligation confirmed by his/her declaration. Since the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the confirmed tax claim as such, it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment unless the act of a taxpayer's declaration becomes null and void as a result of a serious and apparent defect, so long as it does not constitute unjust enrichment. Here, the Supreme Court has established a view that it is reasonable to determine whether the act of a taxpayer's declaration constitutes null and void as a result of a significant and obvious defect, by individually identifying the purpose, meaning, function, and specific circumstances leading to the act of a return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31419, Feb. 28, 1995; 95Da18185, Nov. 28, 195; 96Da3807, Apr. 12, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff acquired the above new construction of the building and supplied the above new construction to the third party, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the head of the Dong office, were allowed to pay the acquisition tax and the registration tax for the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the employees of the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City office, for the purpose of calculating the amount of the acquisition tax and the registration tax for the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 9, the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, the new construction of the building, for the purpose of the non-party 1, the new construction of the building.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)