Where income tax is collected on income which is not subject to withholding, the tax authorities are obliged to return unjust enrichment to the tax authorities.

The tax authorities may not exercise the right to impose tax on a person who is a resident abroad and where the withholding agent has paid the income tax, it may receive a return of unjust enrichment, but the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment shall be exercised before the extinctive prescription expires.

Article 741 of the Civil Act: Unjust Enrichment

2013 Gohap536996 Undue gains

1. AA;

1.Korea 2.B

December 22, 2014

on 21, 2015

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay the relevant money in attached Form 1-1 and the amount of income tax on each of such money as stated in the "Date of Income Tax" column for the corresponding date, from the following day to April 30, 2009, 13.7, 1000 per day until April 30, 209, and 9.3, 100/100 per day from May 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010; and 11.8, 200/100 per day from April 1, 201 to April 10, 201; 37,000 per annum from April 11, 201 to February 29, 2012 to 30/30,000 per annum from March 1, 201 to 30/30,000 per annum, respectively;

B. Defendant BB-si pays each amount of money listed in the “Local Income Tax” column of attached Table 1-2 and each amount of money listed in the “date of payment of local income tax” column of each corresponding date to August 29, 2013, respectively, and 20% per annum from August 30, 2013 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by the Plaintiff, 10% is borne by the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB is borne by

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The order No. 1-b (b) and the defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the plaintiff the amount corresponding to each item of the "Income Tax" column of attached Table 3-1 of the income tax and payment date table of attached Table 3-1 of the income tax and each of them to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case from the day following the corresponding date to the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. The amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is a company whose main business is consumer financial business, and KimE, the plaintiff's shareholder and representative director, KimE, the spouse of KimD, is registered as a director on the plaintiff's registry. KimE is a Japanese resident under the Convention between the Republic of Korea and Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter "Korea-Japan Tax Treaty").

B. Taxable income of this case

As between January 2004 and December 2008, the Plaintiff paid to KimE a total of KRW 818,060,912 as remuneration and bonus (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxable income”).

C. Payment of each income tax and each local income tax in the instant case

1) From February 5, 2004 to January 9, 2009, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant Republic of Korea (the head of the FF Tax Office under his jurisdiction) each of the corresponding amounts stated in the "Income Tax Date of Income Tax and Payment Date Table" column of attached Table 3-1 as income tax on the instant taxable income, and paid the total of KRW 134,761,865 as income tax (hereinafter referred to as the "income tax of this case") by withholding method, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "income tax of this case").

2) In addition, from February 5, 2004 to January 9, 2009, the Plaintiff paid 13,476,010 won in total, as local income tax (hereinafter referred to as "local income tax of this case") to Defendant BB Si (the head of the competentCC) on each of the corresponding days listed in the "date of Payment of Local Income Tax and Income Tax on the "Date of Payment of Local Income Tax" Table 3-2, attached hereto, as local income tax (hereinafter referred to as "the local income tax of this case").

D. taxation conducted on September 1, 2010

Of the instant taxable income of KRW 818,060,912, the Plaintiff paid 774,973,994 to KimE from January 2005 to December 2, 2008, the FF head of the tax office added the total amount of KRW 774,973,994 to the Plaintiff on the ground that KimE did not provide the Plaintiff with labor, and on September 1, 2010, the FF head of the tax office added the total amount of KRW 519,763,230 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 1,102,698,220 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 303,323,100 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 432,134,540 (including additional taxes) for the business year of 208 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff issued a revised notice and notice to the head of the tax office on September 1, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as above).

E. taxation conducted on September 3, 2010

In addition, with respect to the above 774,973,94 won, the head of the FF Tax Office excluded the application of a single tax rate of 17% to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2010 on the ground that KimE is a Japanese resident, before the amendment by Act No. 8138 of December 30, 2006, with respect to the remuneration and bonus of 2005, 2007, and 2008, the remuneration and bonus of 2008 are not subject to the application of Article 18-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of December 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), and on September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff imposed a single tax rate of 17% on the wage and salary income of 205 (including additional tax), 41,692,830 (including additional tax), 207,2008 won (including additional tax) and additional tax for 207.10).7 won).

F. Plaintiff’s revocation suit

On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 1, 2010 and September 3, 2010, against the head of the FF Tax Office as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2012Guhap43819, and KimE took charge of the Plaintiff’s financing business in Japan. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 1, 2010, on the premise that the provision of labor was not made, that the payment of KimE was not included in deductible expenses or the special taxation of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act was not recognized, and that the taxation was made on September 1, 2010, and that was made on September 3, 2010, when KimE did not provide labor to the Plaintiff, the said tax was imposed on the Plaintiff as remuneration and bonus, and that the said tax was not imposed on the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 22 of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty. Accordingly, the tax disposition on September 3, 2010 was unlawful.

G. Confirmation of the preceding lawsuit of this case

On June 21, 2013, the Seoul Administrative Court rejected the Plaintiff’s primary argument on the grounds that KimE cannot be deemed to have provided labor to the Plaintiff. The Japanese resident KimE, cited the Plaintiff’s preliminary argument on September 1, 2010 on the ground that there was no income tax liability in Korea, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the principal tax of the said corporate tax. However, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment citing the claim for revocation of additional tax as to the principal tax of the said corporate tax from September 1, 2010, and the claim for revocation of the tax assessment of September 3, 2010 (additional tax as to the income tax and the said tax assessment of the said income tax), and each of the above cited parts was finalized around July 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

(h) Refund of earned income tax due to a taxation disposition dated September 3, 2010;

Defendant Republic of Korea, on August 8, 2013, refunded all the labor income tax paid by the Plaintiff according to the taxation disposition dated September 3, 2010.

I. Main contents of the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty

The details of this case in the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty are as shown in attached Form 4. The relevant statutes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 evidence (including each number in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The taxable income of this case does not correspond to domestic source income prescribed by the Income Tax Act, and can only be subject to taxation in Japan as other income pursuant to the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty. Since the Plaintiff’s obligation to withhold each income tax of this case against Defendant Republic of Korea and the Plaintiff’s obligation to withhold each local income tax of this case against Defendant BB, the Defendants are obliged to return each income tax of this case and each local income tax of this case to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

1) On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court as Seoul High Court 2013Nu22514 regarding the judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the principal tax of corporate tax, among the taxation dispositions rendered on September 1, 2010, on the grounds that the Seoul High Court cannot be deemed that the KimE provided labor to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2014, and thus, the disposition for imposition of the principal tax of corporate tax was lawful, among the taxation dispositions rendered on September 1, 2010, and the Plaintiff partly accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal, unlike the lower court

2) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

The Plaintiff may file a claim for correction of each income tax and each local income tax in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is imposed by the withholding method, and then receive a remedy for infringement of rights through an appeal litigation against the disposition of the tax authority. In such a case, unless there is a serious and apparent defect in erroneous payment, it shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment immediately. The income subject to taxation of this case is an obvious apparent defect in appearance that the income subject to taxation of this case is not paid for the actual work. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to a remedy through an appeal litigation for the portion for which the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning a claim for correction among income tax of this case was enacted after 207, and may not seek a return of unjust enrichment against

3) Defendant BB’s assertion

When the Plaintiff paid the instant taxable income to KimE, the Plaintiff voluntarily returned and paid the instant local income tax by deeming the instant taxable income as the income from KimE’s domestic source, and Defendant BB’s receipt of each local income tax from the Plaintiff through legitimate procedures. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant and apparent defect in the erroneous payment of each local income tax of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of each local income tax of this case is unreasonable.

B. Determination

1) 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 the 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 finalized, and the refund claim is not confirmed 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 determination is not a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the tax payer's right to claim refund, and thus, the above claim for refund belongs to the withholding agent who is not the withholding agent. Thus, even if the withholding agent refused the application for refund of the amount of tax withheld at the source, it does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du1818, etc.

2) The Plaintiff paid each of the instant local income taxes to the Defendant Republic of Korea from February 5, 2004 to January 9, 2009 as income tax and local income tax on the instant taxable income, and during the same period, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) KimE received the instant taxable income even though it did not provide labor to the Plaintiff; (b) Japanese resident KimE does not fall under the domestic source income subject to the income tax law; (c) Japanese resident KimE does not perform its business as the Plaintiff’s registered director; (d) the instant local income tax was paid to the Defendant BB pursuant to Article 16 of the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty and Article 15(1) of the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty; and (e) each of the instant local income tax was paid to the Defendant BB through the entire purport of pleadings; and (e) the Plaintiff’s tax treaty and other tax treaty are not imposed in Korea, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff did not provide labor to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff’s income subject to taxation is not subject to taxation; and (b) the Plaintiff’s local income tax treaty.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is the withholding agent, collected each income tax and each local income tax of this case from Kim E, the source of withholding agent, and paid them to the Defendants. Since each income tax and each local income tax of this case are unjust enrichment owned without any legal ground, the Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to return each income tax of this case and the statutory interest thereon to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and Defendant BB is obligated to return each local income tax of this case and the statutory interest thereon to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance.

3) On this issue, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that, in the event that the Plaintiff can receive a remedy through an appeal against the disposition of the tax authority after filing a claim for correction, it shall not immediately be deemed unjust unless there is a significant and apparent defect in erroneous payment or erroneous payment. Defendant BB made a voluntary return and payment of the local income tax of this case by deeming the Plaintiff’s income subject to taxation of this case as the income from KimE’s income, and Defendant BB market price received the local income tax of this case from the Plaintiff through legitimate procedures. Accordingly, Defendant BB market price asserted that there is no significant and apparent defect in the payment of the

In light of the following facts: (a) Each income tax and each local income tax of this case are not established and determined by the tax authority’s disposition or the taxpayer’s filing act; (b) when the Plaintiff, the withholding agent, pays the income subject to taxation of this case to Kim E-E, the tax liability is established and the tax amount is finalized without special procedure; (c) the right to request correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes is to protect the rights and interests of the withholding agent, not to limit the withholding agent’s right to request the return of unjust enrichment; and (d) even if a request for correction is permitted under the Framework Act on National Taxes, it cannot be limited to the Plaintiff’s right to request the return of unjust enrichment; (c) in the case of each income tax and each local income tax of this case imposed by the withholding method, the net unjust enrichment received regardless of whether there is a significant and apparent defect in the erroneous payment; and (d) the Plaintiff can immediately exercise the right to request the return of unjust enrichment

4) In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for delay of performance as a debt with no time limit for performance, and Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for delay of performance from the time when the debtor receives a claim for performance. Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for delay from the day following the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case for which the plaintiff received a claim for performance from the plaintiff was served. However, the plaintiff sought the payment of each income tax of this case and each local income tax of this case due to return of unjust enrichment and claimed legal interest thereon. Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea’s

3. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Determination on the Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense of extinctive prescription

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the statute of limitation expired for the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment on the income tax paid from March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008 among each income tax of this case against Defendant Republic of Korea.

In a case where there is no taxation or ex officio invalidity, the amount paid or collected by a taxpayer under this taxation constitutes unjust enrichment acquired by the State without any legal ground. Since the taxpayer’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against such erroneous payment was paid or collected without any legal ground, it becomes final and conclusive at the time of payment or collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da32053, Mar. 31, 192).

From March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the income tax for the period from January 2004 to May 2008 in the column of the "Classification of Income Tax and Payment Date Table" attached to attached Table 3-1 of the income tax of this case from March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008 is as above. As such, the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment from the date of payment of income tax should be calculated. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on August 9, 2013 after five years as prescribed by Article 96 of the National Finance Act. It is evident in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was filed on August 9, 2013. The Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment from March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008 to the aggregate of the income tax of this case (i.e., the total income tax of this case 134,761,868.

B. Judgment on the plaintiff's second defense

1) Whether there was a de facto disability

The Plaintiff asserted that, among the instant taxable income subject to taxation conducted as of September 1, 2010 and as of September 3, 2010, the statute of limitations should run from July 10, 2013, since the Plaintiff asserted whether the Plaintiff’s obligation to withhold income tax was established on KRW 774,973,94 that was paid to KimE from January 1, 2005 to December 2008, and that the instant prior lawsuit was finalized around July 10, 2013, which determined that the Plaintiff did not establish the Plaintiff’s obligation to withhold income tax. The instant prior lawsuit became final and conclusive on July 10, 2013, because there was a cause that prevents the Plaintiff from exercising the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the Republic of Korea before the instant prior lawsuit becomes final and conclusive.

On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around December 26, 2012, Kim E-E took charge of the Plaintiff’s financing business in Japan as the Plaintiff’s non-permanent executive officers; (b) both taxation disposition on September 1, 2010 and taxation disposition on September 3, 2010, which was based on the premise that labor was not provided, are unlawful; and (c) in preliminary, where Kim E-E did not provide labor to the Plaintiff, the total amount of KRW 74,973,94 paid from January 1, 2005 to December 2008 does not constitute domestic source income under the Income Tax Act; and (d) around September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive tax disposition on September 1, 2010 and the Plaintiff’s conjunctive tax disposition on September 3, 2010 cannot be deemed to have been revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected on September 1, 2010.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the statute of limitations proceeds from the time when the plaintiff can exercise his/her right (Article 166(1) of the Civil Act); and “the time when the right, which is the starting point of the statute of limitations, can be exercised” means the time when the right is exercised, has no legal disability (e.g., performance period, suspension condition), and the prescription period is not underway because the right holder was unable to exercise his/her right due to a lack of personal circumstance or legal knowledge, lack of land for existence of right, or absence of debtor, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2626, Jan. 19, 1982). ② The Plaintiff did not have a legal disability in exercising his/her right to request the return of unjust enrichment from March 10, 204 to July 10, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da262626, Jan. 2, 2019).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the prescription has been interrupted due to a judicial claim

The Plaintiff asserts that the prior suit of this case filed a dispute over the establishment of the Plaintiff’s income tax withholding obligation on KRW 774,973,994 from January 1, 2005 to December 2008, which was paid by KimE as a withholding agent on the remuneration and bonus that the Plaintiff paid by KimE as a withholding agent on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserted that the prior suit of this case constituted a judicial claim, which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription as to the right to claim for return of unjust enrichment of each of the instant income taxes.

In addition, the Plaintiff filed the instant prior suit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition conducted on December 26, 2012 by the Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap43819, Sept. 1, 2010 and by September 3, 2010, as seen earlier.

However, since an administrative litigation is seeking cancellation or change of an illegal administrative disposition and does not exercise a private right, it does not constitute a cause for interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da1500, 1501, Feb. 13, 1979). The preceding lawsuit does not exercise a private right as to each income tax of this case, but seeks revocation of each tax disposition as of Sept. 1, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010, and it cannot be a premise or a means for exercising a claim for return of unjust enrichment as to each income tax of this case. In light of the fact that the validity of the taxation disposition as of Sept. 1, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010 are not in a relation between the existence of a right to claim return of unjust enrichment and the existence of a right to claim return of unjust enrichment as to each income tax of this case, the preceding lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed a cause for interruption of prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3) Whether there was an acceptance of the obligation or waiver of the benefit of prescription

The Plaintiff: (a) on August 8, 2013, the day before the instant prior suit became final and conclusive, the Defendant Republic of Korea refunded all the labor income tax paid by the Plaintiff according to the Plaintiff’s taxation rendered on September 3, 2010, which was the date when the instant prior suit became final and conclusive; (b) however, the Plaintiff’s respective income tax and the labor income tax paid by the Plaintiff according to the said taxation rendered on September 3, 2010 are substantially identical to the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendant Republic of Korea as the withholding agent regarding the income on KimE; and (c) the Plaintiff’s right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant Republic of Korea is the same kind of claim between the same parties; and (d) Defendant Republic of Korea

On August 8, 2013, after the prior suit in this case became final and conclusive, the fact that the Plaintiff paid all earned income tax (including additional tax) paid by the Plaintiff according to the tax disposition dated September 3, 2010 by the Defendant Republic of Korea was recognized as above.

However, with respect to whether Defendant Republic of Korea approved the obligation to return unjust enrichment of each of the instant income tax, approval as a reason for the interruption of prescription can be made only before the completion of the prescription period. As such, Defendant Republic of Korea, from March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008, has already completed the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment with respect to each of the instant income tax paid from March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008, after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment with respect to each of the instant income tax, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a reason for the interruption of prescription.

Next, in view of the fact that Defendant Republic of Korea renounced the prescriptive benefit as to each of the instant income tax, health expenses, wage and salary income tax imposed by a tax disposition as of September 3, 2010, separate from each of the instant income tax, and Defendant Republic of Korea refunds labor income tax to the Plaintiff according to the binding force of the instant preceding lawsuit that revoked the tax disposition as of September 3, 2010, it cannot be said that Defendant Republic of Korea renounced the benefit of the completion of the statute of limitations for the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment on each of the instant income tax that was paid from March 10, 204 to July 10, 208 by Defendant Republic of Korea.

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the plaintiff is without merit.

4) Whether the claim for extinctive prescription violates the good faith principle

The Plaintiff had a de facto disability that the Plaintiff could not exercise the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant before the establishment of the instant prior suit. The Defendant Republic of Korea, following the establishment of the instant prior suit, had expressed the same attitude as to the act of making the Plaintiff believe that the measures for interruption of prescription are unnecessary by refunding the total amount of the labor income tax paid by the Plaintiff in accordance with the tax disposition dated September 3, 2010, or not using the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the completion of the statute of limitations against the instant income tax contravenes the principle

However, as seen in the above paragraph (1) 1, Kim EE, which was recorded as a director on the Plaintiff’s registry, did not provide the Plaintiff with labor, and was a Japanese resident, and thus, the Plaintiff was aware that there was no right to impose tax on the income tax in the Republic of Korea, or was negligent. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having any de facto disability preventing the Plaintiff from exercising his right to claim for return of unjust enrichment on each income tax in the instant case, and ② as seen in the above paragraph (3) 3, the wage and salary tax on September 3, 2010 imposed on the Plaintiff by separate disposition from each income tax in the instant case, and the Defendant Republic of Korea refunded the Plaintiff’s labor income tax on August 8, 2013, which was the expiration of the prescription period pursuant to the binding force of the instant preceding lawsuit, which was decided to revoke the taxation disposition by September 3, 2010. In light of the principle of trust and good faith, it cannot be said that the Defendant Republic of Korea did not use the statute of limitations or use the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Sub-committee

A. As to Defendant Republic of Korea

Defendant Republic of Korea: the day immediately following the relevant date indicated in the "Income Tax Table of Attached 1-1, 2008, excluding each income tax paid from March 10, 2004 to July 10, 2008, among the respective income tax of this case, to the Plaintiff; each of the relevant money indicated in the "Income Tax Table of the quoted Amount" column of Attached 1-1, 2008, and each of the relevant income tax of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff;

By April 30, 2009, 13.7/1000 per day from May 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, 9.3, 10/1000 per day, from April 1, 201 to April 10, 201, 11.8, 37/100 per annum from April 11, 201 to February 29, 2012; and 40/100 per annum from March 1, 201 to February 29, 2013 to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30/100 per annum from March 1, 201 to February 29, 2013 to 30/100 per annum from March 28, 2013 to 20/30 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, respectively, the statutory interest calculated at the rate of 30/100 per annum from March 29, 2013.

B. As to Defendant BB

Defendant BB’s payment date of each of the corresponding amounts indicated in the “Local Income Tax” column of attached Form 1-2 for the Plaintiff as well as each of the local income tax of this case after paying each of the corresponding amounts to the Plaintiff, as sought by the Plaintiff, and Defendant BB’s payment date of the local income tax of this case from the day following the corresponding date indicated in the “date of Payment of Local Income Tax” column of the same Table, to August 29, 2013, a copy of the complaint of this case was served to Defendant BB, and the statutory interest calculated at the corresponding rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the “applicable interest rate of the same Table as stipulated in the “National Tax Basic Act” shall be paid from August 30, 2013 to the day of full payment.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is accepted. The plaintiff's remaining claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.