Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorneys Yang Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Donggsan Tax Office

April 22, 1994

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection of correction of each securities transaction tax recorded in the separate sheet against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

After transferring the common shares of Hyundai Elevator Co., Ltd. owned by them to members of each issuing company and officers and employees of the modern affiliated company on February 10, 192, on March 10, 1992, the plaintiffs asserted that on April 9, 1992 of the same year, each return and payment of securities transaction tax was made to the defendant as stated in the attached list, but the defendant did not make any disposition of the above voluntary payment from the date of the revised return to the expiration of 60 days from the date of the revised correction decision, the plaintiffs asserted that the above shares were transferred to each of the above shares and then the transfer was the subject of securities transaction tax. However, since the above shares are subject to non-taxation under Article 6 subparag. 2 of the Securities Transaction Tax Act, the defendant should correct the transfer unless the revised report was made within a lawful period, and further, the report of the Securities Transaction Commission as stipulated in Article 8 of the Securities Transaction Tax Act did not change the pertinent order of non-taxation by the policy regulations that induce the company disclosure.

ex officio, it shall be viewed as to the requirements for the lawsuit in this case.

Article 45(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where there are omissions or errors in the stated matters, a person who files a return of tax base within a statutory return period may file a revised return of tax base within a specified period from the expiration of the statutory return period if such errors or omissions exist, and where there exist any matters which reduce the tax base or the amount of tax previously filed or increase the tax amount to be paid, with respect to securities transaction tax, etc. which are the method of filing the revised return of tax base, the method of filing the revised return of tax base shall be corrected at the same time within 60 days from the date of receipt of the initial return of the revised return, and where the result thereof is corrected at the same time by stipulating that the person liable for tax payment shall be corrected at the same time when he/she files the revised return of tax base, and where there are errors or omissions in the stated matters, or where there are errors or omissions in the stated matters in the return of tax base, the head of a tax office may immediately determine the amount of refund or the amount of tax to be refunded by stipulating immediately after the tax return is determined by prescribing.

In this case, as alleged by the plaintiffs in this case, if the plaintiffs misleads the plaintiffs as a non-taxation object under the Securities Transaction Tax Act, and make a final return and payment, the amount of the tax payment shall be paid by mistake and mistake without any cause at the time of the payment by the plaintiffs or the tax authorities, and the right to claim the national tax refund shall become final and conclusive at the time of the payment by law, and the claim in the lawsuit for the right to claim the refund of the national tax shall be exercised in civil procedure. Furthermore, the subject of the revised return under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be limited to the omission and error of the reported matters, and it shall be interpreted that the subject of the revised return under the above Act is limited to the case where the return is made excessively or underreporting due to the crisis or error of the reported matters, and it shall not be deemed that the whole amount of the reported tax amount is subject to non-taxation, as alleged above, to correct the return by mistake and self-payment as a whole

In addition, the revised return should be deemed to have been rejected due to the taxpayer's breach of duty by the taxation office for the purpose of removing disadvantages due to the taxpayer's failure to take a tangible measure when the revised return is filed for a legitimate revision return that meets the requirements. However, the taxation office is not obligated to respond to the application for refund in the substance of the application for refund, not the revised return, but it should be deemed that there was a refusal disposition of (the revised return) with the omission that did not respond to the application for refund, and it should not be deemed that there was a refusal disposition of (the revised return).

Ultimately, in this case where the plaintiffs filed a final return on the securities transaction tax and filed a revised return on the grounds that it is exempt from taxation, using the expression of objection against the revised return as there is no correction disposition on the grounds that it is exempted from taxation, but the substantial purport of the assertion constituting the fact of claim is not to dispute the defendant's response attitude to seek refund of the amount of erroneous payment. Thus, even if there was no response by the defendant, this cannot be said to be a mere refusal of the tax authority to fulfill monetary obligations, and it cannot be said that the refusal disposition is revoked on the premise that there was an administrative disposition of refusal separately.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed in entirety because they are not administrative litigation matters or are illegal because they do not have any qualification or interest in the protection of rights, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

June 3, 1994

Judges Cho Jae-soon (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission (List)]