beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff, the primary source of claim, as prescribed by the Income Tax Act, was a resident who is not a source taxpayer of capital gains tax, and 4,873,000,000 won in total as well as 443,000,000 won in total as resident tax, and paid each of them to the YY and the viewing of the YY.
If a withholding agent collects and pays a tax amount on income not subject to withholding from a source taxpayer or collects and pays it in excess of a reasonable tax amount, the Defendant made unjust enrichment as soon as he/she receives from the withholding agent.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to additional dues on each land of this case from the payment date of the capital gains tax and the amount equivalent to the resident tax paid as above for YY to the time when the obligation to pay capital gains tax on each land of this case arises, and Ynam Development is obligated to
However, the Defendant, instead of going through the above dynamic procedure, dealt with the amount of tax that should be returned to the Plaintiff, so that the Plaintiff would deduct the amount of capital gains tax from the amount of tax already paid at the time of the return and payment.
Although the above tax credit is in the form of a mutual aid on the premise that the plaintiff is a non-resident, it should be interpreted that, if the plaintiff is recognized as a resident, the refund amount to be refunded for the development of the building and the implied agreement between the original defendant, which would cover the plaintiff's tax amount.
Nevertheless, the defendant did not deduct the amount equivalent to the additional dues.
Therefore, the defendant's payment of the refund paid to the plaintiff from the amount equivalent to the refund and additional refund.