Since it is reasonable to deem that the entire taxation disposition was revoked ex officio, national tax collected from the Plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment.

As long as the entire taxation by the Plaintiff was revoked ex officio through the procedures for civil petition for grievance, national taxes collected by the Defendant from the Plaintiff are gains without legal grounds, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the above amount, so the amount should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2013dada 172371 Return of unjust enrichment

IsaA

Korea

June 24, 2014

July 22, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 99,364,560 won with 20% interest per annum from June 29, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father Lee BB (the Deceased, on April 20, 2008, hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) operated a stone and artificial stone business in the name of the Plaintiff from February 6, 2003 to October 16, 2006 under the Plaintiff’s name.

B. Around May 2007, the Defendant imposed tax on the Plaintiff, the nominal owner, on global income tax and value-added tax arising in relation to the deceased’s business during the pertinent business period, and seized the Plaintiff’s benefit claim.

C. From June 22, 2007 to November 27, 2012, the Defendant collected the OOO from the Plaintiff’s wage claim.

D. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the name of the business owner to the Samsung Tax & Family Protection Office, and the Plaintiff, the father, who actually conducted the business, submitted an application for grievance to request the revocation of its taxation disposition against himself.

E. On December 26, 2012, the head of Samsung District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance was accepted, and released the attachment on January 2, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 22, each of the taxation information submission orders by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay OOO and damages for delay collected from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

Although the Defendant asserted that only the part in arrears at the time when the Plaintiff applied for a civil petition for grievance was revoked, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax disposition was revoked ex officio, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier: ① the purport of the Plaintiff’s application for a civil petition for grievance appears to have sought revocation of the entire tax disposition imposed on the Plaintiff; ② the Defendant did not indicate that partial revocation was revoked on the ground of revocation of the tax disposition; ③ the grounds for refusal of refund presented by Samsung tax secretary were attributable to misunderstanding of the general rules of national tax. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 29, 2013 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.