A claim for the repayment of taxes reported and paid by a withholding agent shall be vested in the withholding agent who is not the original taxpayer.

The right to claim the refund of unjust enrichment belongs to the withholding agent, not the original taxpayer, so the plaintiff who is the original taxpayer cannot immediately make a claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the State.

Article 62 of the Corporate Tax Act

District Court-2014-Sate-37297 (No. 18, 2015)

The Korean Association of Supervisors of the Government of the Republic of Korea;

Korea

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 17,424,820 won with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

As a non-profit domestic corporation, the Plaintiff may choose not to file a tax base return on interest income withheld pursuant to Article 62 of the Corporate Tax Act, and the income for which no tax base return is filed shall not be included in calculating the amount of income for each

The Plaintiff actually withheld 468,291,357 won (the only income of the Plaintiff corporation) and 65,625,130 won as corporate tax. The Plaintiff stated that the actual amount of interest income and the non-taxable income are 344,291,357 won when filing a tax base and tax amount with the tax authority within the statutory due date of return. Accordingly, the corporate tax that can be refunded was 65,625,130 won, but was 48,200,310 won.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff reported the amount of interest income for the year 2009 to the tax authority as of March 18, 2013, and requested the return of 17,424,820 won (=65,625,130 won - 48,200,310 won), which is the difference, to be the difference (=65,625,130 won - 48,200,310 won). However, the Defendant rejected it (the claim for correction).

2. Determination

On the other hand, the corporate tax amount claimed by the Plaintiff, which is to be refunded, is about interest income withheld from 00 credit cooperatives, the withholding agent, and if the withholding agent collects and pays the tax amount on income which is not subject to withholding from the withholding agent or in excess of the tax amount to be collected, the State shall be deemed to have obtained unjust enrichment held by the withholding agent without any legal ground. On the other hand, the above claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8780, Nov. 8, 2002) is attributed to the withholding agent, who is not the withholding agent, not the withholding agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8780, Nov. 8, 200). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, the withholding agent, who

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.