The defect in the acquisition tax and registration tax return of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as it is significant and apparent.

It is insufficient to recognize that there are special circumstances to deem the act of filing the pertinent return to be null and void automatically due to the significant and apparent defects in the act of filing the acquisition tax and registration tax in this case, or that the above act of filing the return is not clear, but is considerably unfair in terms of remedy of rights and interests of taxpayers.

2012 Gohap10131 Return of unjust enrichment

KimA

1.Seoul Special Metropolitan City 2.Korea

2013.09.03

2013.09.26

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The plaintiff shall pay 3.7% a year from December 30, 201 to February 29, 201, 4% a year from the next day to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% a year from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 14, 2005, the Plaintiff donated each real estate listed in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the attached list of real estate (hereinafter “FF real estate”) to ChoBB, ParkCC, ChoD, and Park E-learning 4. On December 16, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of ChoB, ParkCC, ChoD, and Park E-E with respect to each of 1/4 shares of the FF real estate on December 16, 2005. Thereafter, on February 27, 2006, the Plaintiff and ChoD revoked the agreement on the donation of ChoD's shares among the FF real estate of this case, but on May 18, 2007, the Plaintiff again donated the above shares to the Plaintiff and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of ChoD on May 22, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff, along with ChoB and ParkCC, established the Korea Telecommunication Association by altering the building portion among the real estate listed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the attached list of real estate (hereinafter “O-dong real estate of this case”), and donated the instant O-dong real estate to the said church to use it as church property.

C. On August 1, 2006, with respect to the Korea Egyptian Association, the members of the Steering Committee composed of two members, two members of the Joint Operation Committee, two members of the Operation Committee, and one clerk shall decide on matters related to the objectives of the above church, disposal of real estate, acquisition and management of real estate, etc. The assets of the above church are real estate, movable property, bonds (including deposits), and other property, and the assets and revenues of the above church are not distributed to the members of the above church, but only used for the purposes of the above church, and are transferred to the Steering Committee, and are registered on behalf of the members of the above church, and the members of the Steering Committee composed of two members, two members of the Joint Operation Committee, two members of the Operation Committee, two members of the above church, two members of the Operation Committee, and the two members of the Joint Operation Committee, two members of the above church, two members of the Operation Committee, and seven members of the Joint Operation Committee.

D. On September 5, 2006, the Plaintiff donated the instant OOE to the KOEOE Association on September 5, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant donation agreement”). On the same day, the above church applied for the registration number for real estate registration by attaching its articles of association to the head of SeoulOOO, and obtained an organization registration number pursuant to the provisions on the procedures for granting the registration number for real estate registration and the registration number for real estate registration. On September 14, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant OOE real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ownership transfer registration”). On October 17, 2008, the above church name changed the registration number for the change of the EOE real estate into the "OEOE" (hereinafter referred to as the “OOE”).

E. On September 6, 2006, in the case of the instant O-dong real estate, "the head of the O-O on September 6, 2006", the Su-dong real estate is currently proved

The Plaintiff, a female, was used as a house, but the Plaintiff was donated to the head of the education center and the flag room for the first floor, the second floor for the second floor, and the underground floor is expected to be used as a management office and an employee accommodation for the purpose of religion, and filed an application for non-taxation of acquisition tax and registration tax on the ground that the instant OOOO real estate is a real estate for business of an organization for religious purposes. * the head of the tax office on September 13, 2006 approved by the head of the tax office as a corporation pursuant to Article 147 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit as described below, and refused to deliver the instant OO real estate, the head of the instant OOOO and registration tax reported to the head of the OOO on September 15, 2009.

F. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of each ownership transfer registration on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) with respect to ChoB, Kim G, Park G, Lee H, ChoD, and Yangyang (hereinafter “Mediation, etc.”) in the name of the Plaintiff. The Seoul Central District Court, on May 14, 2010, stated that each of the instant real estate was made under the authority of the Plaintiff, or that each of the instant real estate was made under the authority of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was unable to obtain an agreement on the removal of such registration for the reason that each of the instant real estate was made under the authority of the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff did not have any duty of care for the removal of such registration for reasons that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to obtain any registration for the said real estate for lack of mental capacity, experience, and thus, that each of the instant provision was invalid for lack of evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant permit was in violation of the Plaintiff’s religious customs or other social order.

G. ChoB et al. filed an appeal regarding the above judgment of the first instance court. On March 25, 201, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court), which caused the appellate court, abandoned the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the FF real estate of this case, and upon the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of each ownership transfer, the plaintiff shall calculate and pay the ownership shares in relation to the gift tax, acquisition tax, registration tax, property tax, separate item of property tax, local education tax, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "special rural development tax and special rural development tax of this case") paid to DaD, ChoB, Park Young, Kim G, and Lee H in accordance with the above procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, and upon the completion of the procedure for registration of cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of this case's FF real estate of this case, the court below determined that the above payment of the acquisition tax and special rural development tax of this case was null and void due to the cancellation or cancellation of the registration tax of this case's title (hereinafter referred to as the "special development tax of this case")."

Classification

Items of Taxation

Principal Tax

Local Education Tax

Special rural development tax

Total

November 2009

Acquisition tax;

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

209.12

Registration tax;

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

I. The Defendants completed the attachment registration on April 8, 2009, which was made by the Defendant Republic of Korea as the right holder; on September 8, 2009, which was made by OO-si as the right holder; on September 8, 2009, each of the attachment registration of this case was made; on May 19, 201, each of the attachment registration of this case was cancelled on May 19, 201 by the instant conciliation order; on October 28, 2011, each of the attachment registration of this case was revoked. After the Seoul Metropolitan Government OO-Gu cancelled on October 28, 2011, the attachment registration of the instant O-dong real estate was revoked due to the attachment registration of O-dong real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "O-gu attachment registration of this case; and on September 21, 2012, O-O disposition on the attachment registration of O-owned real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "O-dong attachment registration of this case").

(j) After recovering the ownership of the instant OCO real estate in accordance with the instant adjustment decision, the Plaintiff sold the instant OCO real estate to two OCOs on December 29, 201 with the World Poisonous Transport Day* Association II (hereinafter “Association II”). However, in lieu of the payment of the said OOs, the second BOs entered into a sales contract with the tax authority on behalf of the Plaintiff on December 29, 201, on the part of the Plaintiff, that the amount equivalent to the delinquent tax amount, such as the instant registration tax, the acquisition tax, and the property tax on the OOs, which is the debt of the instant EOs in lieu of the said payment. According to the said sales contract, the IIOs paid the delinquent tax amount, including the instant acquisition tax and the registration tax, on December 29, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 8, 10 through 14 (including paper numbers), Eul 1, 2

Each entry of evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleading, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the donation contract of this case is null and void because it is a contract under which a donee does not have any substance as a non-corporate group, it cannot be a taxpayer. Thus, it cannot acquire the ownership of the real estate of this case. Thus, the act of reporting the acquisition tax and registration tax of this case based on the acquisition of OO-dong real estate of this case and the registration of transfer of ownership of this case is serious, and it is apparent and invalid as it is reasonable. Nevertheless, the plaintiff sold the O-dong real estate of this case to the II Association, and paid the acquisition tax and registration tax of this case to the defendants as the purchase price of the real estate of this case to cancel the attachment disposition of O-dong at the request of the II church. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the acquisition tax and registration tax of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment equivalent to the acquisition tax and registration tax of this case, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to return the O-dong real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Relevant statutes and relevant legal principles

1) Relevant statutes

The statutes related to this case shall be as specified in the attached statutes.

2) Relevant legal principles

A) Acquisition tax and registration tax are taxes in the form of tax payment by self-return, as a matter of principle, the tax liability of a taxpayer is specifically determined by the act of filing a tax base and amount of tax, and the act of payment is the performance of specific tax liability determined by the return, and local governments hold the tax amount paid based on the final tax claim as above. Thus, unless the act of a taxpayer's return is void as a matter of course due to a grave and obvious defect, it shall not be deemed

In this context, as to whether a defect in filing a report constitutes the invalidation of a report, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedies against defective reporting acts, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for filing the report, should be considered as a teleological basis, and at the same time, it should be reasonably determined by individually grasping specific circumstances that resulted from filing the report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81257, Apr. 23, 2009). However, as acquisition tax reporting is conducted between a taxpayer and a tax authority, and it is not particularly problematic to protect a third party reliance on the existence of filing the report, and even if such reporting acts are deemed null and void, it does not seriously undermine legal stability. On the other hand, even if there are serious defects in the tax requirements, etc., and the legal remedies are relatively insufficient compared to national taxes, taking into account the stability of the tax administration and the request for smooth operation thereof, if there are special circumstances to deem that such reporting acts are considerably unreasonable in terms of remedy for rights and interests of the taxpayer (see, etc.).

B) In a case where a certain organization establishes rules that have the nature of an association with its own objective and, on the basis thereof, has an organization that has a decision-making body and an executive body as well as an organization that employs representatives, etc., the organization itself remains in existence, regardless of the change due to the joining, withdrawal, etc. of members, and where the organization has a method of representation, operation of a general meeting or board of directors, etc., composition of capital, management of property, or other important matters of the organization, it shall be deemed that the organization has the substance of a non-corporate body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63683, May 29, 2008).

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the water training center of this case consists only of ChoB, ChoG, ParkCC, and ParkCC's identification of HaH, and it did not have physical facilities for a church or religious organization. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the overall purport of the arguments cited in the above legal principles, each of Gap 1 through 22 evidence (including each number), which is recognized as being combined with the whole purport of each of the above evidence admitted by the above legal principles, the water training center of this case, the water training center of this case, and ChoB, and HaB, and the water training center of this case, were null and void automatically because the defects of the above reporting act were significant and apparent, or it is insufficient to recognize that the taxpayer was at a disadvantage due to the above reporting act in terms of protecting taxpayers' rights and interests, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above reporting act of this case is invalid on the premise that the above reporting act of this case is invalid on the premise that it is invalid.

A) In the instant lawsuit, the first instance judgment was rendered to the effect that the instant donation contract is null and void due to the lack of substance as a church. However, the instant consignment was approved as an organization deemed a corporation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff appears not to have any problem in the capacity of the parties to the instant consignment in the instant lawsuit. Ultimately, in light of the content and organization of the articles of incorporation of the instant donation hall and its organization, it cannot be concluded that the instant consignment was clearly denied the substance as a non-corporate group at the time of reporting the acquisition tax and registration tax, in view of the fact that the instant consignment was granted registration number as a non-corporate group under the Registration of Real Estate Act, and the Plaintiff appears not to have any problem in the instant lawsuit related thereto.

B) In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and where it can only be revealed whether it is subject to taxation accurately, it cannot be deemed that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation of unlawful taxation that misleads the requirements for taxation cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du22723, Feb. 23, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the process of the instant lawsuit, the first instance judgment in the instant lawsuit, the contents of the instant conciliation decision, and the above A), it is difficult to view that the Defendant, the tax authority, as the Defendants of the instant case, voluntarily filed the acquisition tax and the registration tax in the instant case, did not have any separate factual basis to establish rules and a representative of an association with the inherent purpose of the instant donation agreement, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was any apparent defect in the organization and executive body of the instant case.

C) Acquisition tax is a taxable object regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires the ownership of the real property in fact, regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires the ownership of the real property in fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu10627, Jan. 24, 1995) because the transfer registration of the ownership in this case is null and void, and the quantity of the goods in this case did not acquire the ownership of the real property in this case. Thus, the report of the acquisition in this case cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the purchaser did not acquire the ownership of the real property in this case.

D) Where matters concerning the acquisition, transfer, change, or extinction of property rights and other rights are registered or recorded in the public register, registration tax is imposed on a person who receives the registration or enrollment as a taxable object of the registration or enrollment, and it is not related to the existence of a simple fact, such as the acquisition, transfer, modification, or extinction of such rights. Thus, even if the name holder of the registration or enrollment is different from the actual title holder, or the registration or enrollment in the public register was cancelled after the registration or enrollment in the public register, the above reasons are not affected by the validity of the disposition imposing registration tax according to the registration or enrollment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu858, Feb. 25, 1986). The reason for the registration of the ownership transfer of this case is null and void, and the registration tax return of this case cannot be said to be null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the number of persons in question did not acquire

E) According to the gift contract, the donee cannot affect the exercise of a tax claim already established even in cases where the donee lawfully acquired the real estate after the contract was terminated by agreement and returned the real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du1428, Dec. 8, 1998). In accordance with the mediation decision of this case, the plaintiff and ChoB, etc., there was an agreement that, instead of cancelling each registration of transfer under the name of ChoB, etc. with respect to the FF real estate of this case and the OO real estate of this case, the plaintiff would bear all the expenses such as gift tax, acquisition tax, registration tax, property tax, etc. as to the FF real estate of this case and all the litigation expenses related to the administrative litigation as to the invalidation or revocation of the disposition of imposition of gift tax on the OO real estate of this case. Thus, there is room to interpret that each gift with respect to the FF real estate of this case and the OO real estate of this case is cancelled under

F) In the process of concluding a sales contract for the instant OO real estate, the Plaintiff asserted that it was inevitable to cancel the attachment disposition by the tax authorities on the instant OO real estate instead of the instant acquisition tax and registration tax. However, since each of the instant OO real estate registrations completed by the Defendants on the instant OO real estate due to the delinquency in payment of the acquisition tax and registration tax was cancelled as the ownership of the instant OO real estate was restored to the Plaintiff, each of the instant dispositions was cancelled, each of the instant seizure registration was not an obstacle to the above sales contract concluded after the cancellation of each of the instant seizure registration. However, the registration of OO that was completed after the Plaintiff’s recovery of ownership of the instant OO real estate was completed was based on the disposition on default on the Plaintiff’s property, a third party, not the instant OO real estate, which is a delinquent taxpayer, and the attachment disposition of OO is void and void under the National Tax Collection Act. However, in light of the fact that there is no evidence that the Plaintiff paid the acquisition tax and the registration tax of this case to the Plaintiff, even if there was no reason for the attachment disposition.

G) The instant acquisition tax and registration tax are taxes in the form of tax return and payment, and the instant veterinary hall voluntarily filed the instant acquisition tax and registration tax after completing the registration of initial ownership preservation, and based on the instant veterinary hall’s report, the instant veterinary hall imposed and notified the instant acquisition tax and registration tax. Whether there was any error in administrative guidance by the Defendants, who are the tax authorities, in the instant reporting act of the acquisition tax and registration tax done by the veterinary hall, or whether there was any error in administrative guidance by the Defendants, who were the tax authorities, in the instant reporting act of the instant veterinary hall, the Defendants notified that the instant veterinary hall would be subject to taxation

There is no special circumstance, such as that it was.

H) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendants should refund the amount of acquisition tax and registration tax of this case to the Plaintiff for remedy of rights and interests, on the grounds that the Defendants were victims, who did not have a mental state and did not gain any economic benefits due to the existence of the water nursery hall. However, the Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11716 Decided February 12, 2009 cited as the Plaintiff’s ground for appeal is not only the formal requirements for acquiring ownership, such as registration, but also the matters that did not meet the substantive requirements for acquiring ownership, such as the payment of purchase price, and thus, it is inappropriate to apply the same case as in this case, which meets the formal requirements for acquiring ownership, such as the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed in the name of the water nursery hall, and according to the above precedents, local tax declaration becomes null and void only if there are special circumstances to deem that it was remarkably unfair in terms of taxpayers’ rights and interests remedy, etc., but also the act of reporting and remedying the acquisition tax of this case as well as the act of filing a new tax return and remedy.

2) Even if the act of filing a return of the acquisition tax and registration tax in this case is null and void automatically due to a grave and obvious defect, Article 70(3) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that "a third party who has paid money collectible by a local government on behalf of a taxpayer cannot claim the return thereof from a local government." Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim the return of the amount equivalent to the acquisition tax and registration tax (excluding the special rural development tax in this case, which is national tax) paid to the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.