beta
Text
1. Defendant Korea’s KRW 372,223,325 as well as 5% per annum from September 30, 2014 to October 23, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification with the director of the tax office for the refund of value-added tax from the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2011.
B. On November 19, 2012, the head of Samsung Tax Office did not pay a refund on the grounds that the value-added tax for the first period of 2007 was the Do and the exclusion period of imposition. ② The value-added tax for the second period from the second period to the second period from the 2007 208 2008 ended, but decided to refund ex officio at the grievance petition settlement unit. However, he decided not to pay a refund refund, and notified the Plaintiff thereof.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). C.
The Plaintiff filed an objection on January 31, 2013, but was dismissed on March 15, 2013. On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed, on June 23, 2014, on a request for adjudication related to the disposition rejecting the rectification of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea
A. As to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the instant lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff was filed with the return of the value-added tax base and tax amount, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction in a dispute over the final return act after voluntary payment, and the claim for the payment of the final value-added tax refundable cannot be filed. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. 2) Since the State’s obligation to pay the refundable value-added tax on the taxpayer to be determined is an obligation under the Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes and is specifically recognized from a tax policy perspective, the State’s claim for the refund of value-added tax against