Main Issues
The nature of excessive withheld tax amount and whether the determination of national tax refund or the decision of refusal to refund under Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is a disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative), and the person entitled to claim a refund of the excessive withheld tax amount (=
Summary of Judgment
If a withholding agent collects and pays the amount of tax on any income which is not subject to withholding from a withholding agent or in excess of the amount of tax to be collected from a withholding agent, the State shall be unjust enrichment held by the withholding agent without any legal ground. Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6303, Dec. 29, 200) provide for the procedures for refund of the tax authority as an internal procedures for the refund of the national tax refund and additional dues for which the claim for refund has become final and conclusive, and it does not become final and conclusive only by the national tax refund decision (including additional dues) decision. Thus, the determination of the national tax refund decision or the refusal of refund on the request for the decision shall not be deemed a disposition that has a specific and direct impact on the taxpayer's existence or scope of the claim for refund, and the above claim for refund belongs to the withholding agent who is not the withholding agent. Thus, even if the withholding agent refused the request for refund of the amount of tax withheld by the withholding agent, it does not constitute an appeal
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6303, Dec. 29, 2000)
Reference Cases
Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Nu6436 Decided June 15, 1989 (Gong1989, 1096) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6412 Decided November 14, 1989 (Gong1990, 49) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6610 Decided February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 679), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2912 Decided April 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1182), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14250 Decided December 25, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 513).
Plaintiff (Appointedd Party), Appellant
Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and 42 others
Defendant, Appellee
Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office
Judgment of the lower court
Daejeon High Court Decision 2001Nu357 delivered on September 28, 2001
Text
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
If a withholding agent collects, pays, or pays, the amount of tax on income which is not subject to withholding from a withholding agent in excess of the amount of tax to be collected from a withholding agent, the State's unjust enrichment held by the withholding agent without any legal ground. Articles 51 (1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6303, Dec. 29, 200) stipulate the procedures for refund of the national tax refund and additional dues as internal procedures by the tax authorities. The national tax refund decision or the refusal of refund of the application is not a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the tax payer's right to claim refund, and thus, it cannot be deemed a disposition that is subject to appeal (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Nu6436, Jun. 15, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6436, Apr. 18, 198; Supreme Court Decision 2002Nu18, Apr. 16, 198).
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to national tax refund and withholding.
The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)