Tax credit is not an ex officio revocation of the initial disposition.

With respect to the capital gains tax reported and paid by the taxpayer, the tax authority imposed the global income tax after deducting the amount of the capital gains tax reported and paid by the taxpayer from the amount of the capital gains tax paid by the global income tax, but the additional notice was issued, but the tax amount paid within the scope of the refund

Seoul Central District Court Gohap533186 Undue enrichment

AA and one other

Korea

November 13, 2017

December 20, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant:

1. Plaintiff A from July 31, 2006 to October 14, 2007

4.2% per annum, from the following day to April 30, 2009, 5% per annum and from the next day to March 31, 2010.

3.39% per annum, 4.31% per annum from the following day to April 10, 201, and from the following day to February 2012.

29.2% per annum, 3.7% from the following day to February 28, 2013, 4% per annum from the following day to February 29, 2014.

3. 3.4% per annum until March 13, 2015, 2.9% per annum from the following day to March 5, 2015, and from the following day:

2.5% until March 6, 2016, 1.8% per annum from the following day to March 13, 2017, and from the following day to the end of March 6, 2017.

5% per annum for the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 15% per annum for the next day to the day of complete payment.

interest in each of the following rates:

2. Plaintiff BB: 208,58,510 won and its related amount from July 31, 2006 to October 14, 2007

4.2% per annum, from the following day to April 30, 2009, 5% per annum and from the next day to March 31, 2010.

3.39% per annum, 4.31% per annum from the following day to April 10, 201, and from the following day to February 2012.

29.2% per annum, 3.7% from the following day to February 28, 2013, 4% per annum from the following day to February 29, 2014.

3. 3.4% per annum until March 13, 2015, 2.9% per annum from the following day to March 5, 2015, and from the following day:

2.5% until March 6, 2016, 1.8% per annum from the following day to March 13, 2017, and from the following day to the end of March 6, 2017.

5% per annum for the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 15% per annum for the next day to the day of complete payment.

each ratio of the amounts paid in

sub-payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs were held at the time of May 25, 2006 by BBB (hereinafter the name of the company).

Note 230,000 (Plaintiff AA 128,000) issued shares of 230,000

(27.83%) Plaintiff BB 102,00 shares (holding ratio 22.17%) and hereinafter referred to as "total shares".

cc) complete a contract to transfer the shares of this case to c and cc

From the same day, 6,413,780,00 won was remitted (Plaintiff AA 3,569,408,000 won, Plaintiff BB 2,84,372,000 won), and on May 29, 2006, 6,400,000 won was remitted for loans to BB.

BB reported and paid KRW 231,765,014 respectively as capital gains tax.

B. BB opened a board of directors on May 30, 2006 to purchase the shares of this case from ccc, but ccc has decided to purchase the same amount as the purchase price from the plaintiffs, and on the same day, cc and its contract was prepared, and then remitted the purchase price to bb as above the amount that the plaintiffs remitted to bb for a loan, etc.

C. After that, bB held a special shareholders’ meeting on March 2, 2009 and resolved to retire the shares of this case, and the capital has been reduced by half by implementing the stock retirement.

D. Daehan and e Tax Office shall, on March 2009, have been in effect on the stock retirement of the instant shares.

2. Based on the determination that deemed dividend income has occurred to the Plaintiffs, the global income tax for the year 2009; the director of the regional tax office, the director of the regional tax office, and the director of the regional tax office, upon the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2009; the director of the regional tax office, upon the Plaintiff’s total tax amount for the KRW 1,272,88,310 (including additional tax); and the director of the regional tax office, upon the Plaintiff’s imposition of the total tax amount for KRW 76,185,970 (including additional tax) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). In this case, in the case of the Plaintiff Company, the amount of the global tax for the Plaintiff Company’s total tax amount for the KRW 1,272,88,310 (including additional tax) minus KRW 290,906,096, and KRW 76,185,970 (including additional tax); the amount of the local tax for the Plaintiff Company’s total tax amount for the Plaintiff Company’s, 7676,1045.

E. The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking revocation of the instant disposition under the d District Court 2015Guhap60748, but the said court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on December 9, 2015. The Plaintiff as to this.

The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2015Nu71053) appealed. On August 31, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment revoking the instant disposition upon acceptance of the Plaintiffs’ claims on August 31, 2016. Accordingly, the head of d tax office and the head of e tax office appealed by Supreme Court 2016Du5252, but revoked the instant disposition on October 10, 2016. Inasmuch as the instant disposition was revoked ex officio, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant disposition on January 25, 2017 by deeming that the Plaintiffs’ seeking revocation of the instant disposition was unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, and thus, deeming that the instant disposition was unlawful (hereinafter referred to as “instant preceding judgment”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (if any, including each number);

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Summary and determination of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs, as d tax affairs and e tax affairs dealt with the plaintiffs' tax payable amount of capital gains tax for the year 2006 as already paid tax amount for the disposition of this case, it shall be deemed that the plaintiffs' return of capital gains tax for the year 2006 was revoked ex officio due to the disposition of this case. As long as the disposition of this case was revoked ex officio, the defendant's transfer income tax for the year 200

Since there is no legal title to hold the tax payable, the defendant asserts that there is a obligation to pay the plaintiffs the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above tax payable amount of the capital gains tax and the legal interest or delay damages.

B. The plaintiffs' above assertion is ultimately premised on the revocation of the plaintiffs' report of capital gains tax for the year 2006 ex officio. However, since taxes on the method of tax return such as capital gains tax are determined by taxpayers by themselves by reporting their tax base and tax amount to the tax authorities, there is no separate disposition by the tax authorities on this matter (On the other hand, in the process of reporting and paying the capital gains tax for the method of tax return by taxpayers, the act of receiving it by the tax authorities in the process of reporting and paying the capital gains tax for the method of tax return is merely a mere office act, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Nu4591, Mar. 27, 190). The plaintiffs' above assertion that the tax

C. It is difficult to accept the plaintiffs' assertion because there is no evidence to acknowledge that the tax authority revised the transfer income tax for year 2006 for the plaintiffs to 0 won, even if the tax authority stated that the transfer income tax for year 2006 for the plaintiffs was reduced to 0 won, and there is no ground to view that the disposition of this case contains the reduction or correction of the transfer income tax for the above transfer income tax ( ① Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16271 Decided June 27, 1997 presented by the plaintiffs as the grounds for the imposition of the transfer income tax, which is a new disposition that is premised on the cancellation of the disposition, the initial disposition is revoked unless there are special circumstances. However, the above Supreme Court's ruling is appropriate to be invoked in this case as to the issue at the time when the tax office imposed the transfer income tax for the method of determining the transfer income tax, which is subject to the return and payment method. ② The Supreme Court's determination on the scope of refund money for the plaintiffs' 1A,278,3108B9 and 2979.1.2.

D. The plaintiffs' claim of this case, which differs from this premise, is without merit to examine further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.