A. The nature of refund of overpaid or erroneously paid tax amount under Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and whether rejection by the tax authority is subject to appeal litigation

(b) Whether the claim for correction of abnormal reduction is recognized after the expiration of the period for filing a revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and whether the subsequent refusal of the claim for refund is subject

A. The existence or scope of refund under Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is determined from the beginning as there is no legal cause for erroneous payment, and the amount paid in excess is determined as the basis of payment, cancellation of disposition, etc., and with respect to the tax refund, it shall be determined in accordance with the requirements for refund under individual tax-related Acts. Therefore, from the perspective of justice and fairness, the above provision merely constitutes an expression of unjust enrichment that the State should immediately return the amount of tax paid in error and the amount of tax refunded to the taxpayer from the amount of tax payable by the taxpayer, and from the perspective of fairness, the existence or scope of tax refund should not be determined or changed due to a decision of the tax authority pursuant to the above provision. Thus, even if the tax authority refused an application for refund by the taxpayer under the above provision, it cannot

B. The assertion that even after the expiration of the revised reporting period under Article 45(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a taxpayer in the form of tax return should be recognized as a right to claim a reduction that can correct the reported amount in conformity with the substance of the report even though there is no express provision on the taxpayer even after the expiration of the revised reporting period, is contrary to the purport that all taxpayers should be allowed to determine the existence and scope of tax liability by limiting the objection period regarding the revised reporting period or the tax litigation, thereby making it uncertain for a long period of time. In addition, even if the Framework Act on National Taxes or the individual tax law provides for a provision that the State may ex officio correct the reported amount within the term of the right to impose tax, a taxpayer subject to a disposition unfavorable to the original reported amount may be dissatisfied with the national decision of correction, and thus, the tax authority should not separately recognize a right to claim a reduction in the amount of tax return to the taxpayer in response to the national decision of correction, and even if the taxpayer

(a)Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; (a) Articles 51(1), 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; and (b) Articles 21 and 22 of the Liquor Tax Act;

(b) 84Nu532 delivered on July 7, 1987

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of the Military Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu69 delivered on June 18, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are also examined.

Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when there is an amount of tax erroneously paid or to be refunded under tax-related Acts (referring to the remaining amount after deduction when there is any amount of tax to be deducted from the amount of refund under the tax-related Acts), the head of a tax office shall immediately determine such erroneous payment, excess payment, or refund money to be refunded under the tax-related Acts. Of the erroneous payment under the above provision, it refers to the amount of tax having no legal cause when erroneous payment is paid or collected according to the invalid disposition, such as payment or collection, and otherwise, the amount of excess payment refers to the amount of tax which has been reduced due to the cancellation, reduction, correction, or determination, etc. of taxation because the act of confirming the contents of tax liability such as return, correction, or determination does not automatically become invalid, although tax refund amount to be refunded under the tax-related Acts was lawfully paid, or after that determination, it refers to the amount to be refunded to a taxpayer under the tax-related Acts because there is no justifiable ground to hold by the State due to the application of the tax-related Acts. Therefore, it means that the amount of refund under the tax-related Acts becomes final and conclusive from the individual tax-related provisions.

Meanwhile, according to Articles 45 subparag. 1 and 45 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who files a tax base return within the statutory period may file a revised tax base return within the period specified in any of the following subparagraphs, and where there exist any matters to reduce the tax base or amount of tax already filed or increase the tax amount to be paid, the Government shall investigate such matters and notify the applicant of the result within 60 days from the date of the revised tax return. As such, the taxpayer is able to file an application for correction of the details of the return with the tax authority through the revised tax return under the above provisions, so that the application for correction of the amount of tax to be paid by the taxpayer cannot be deemed as legitimate and reasonable even after the expiration of the revised tax return period because there are no express provisions on the taxpayer’s request for correction of the amount of tax to be paid at the same time as the subsequent tax return, and thus, the court below’s determination that the amount of tax to be paid at the latest 2nd manufacturing place is not subject to the revised tax return ex officio.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)