Seoul Central District Court-2015-Gohap-574176 ( July 14, 2016)

Whether the disposition of imposition following a double tax investigation constitutes unjust enrichment of the tax authority

The meaning of the "clear material to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion", which is an exception to double investigation, is unclear. Considering that there is a dispute over interpretation because the relevant legal principles are not clearly revealed, even if the secondary tax investigation of this case by the administrative agency constitutes double investigation, the disposition of imposition on the secondary tax investigation does not constitute unjust enrichment.

Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation]

Seoul High Court-2017-C-2051871 ( December 16, 2016)

*

Korea

December 16, 2016

Supreme Court Decision

2017Da2051871 Return of Unjust Enrichment

*

Korea

The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kahap574176 Decided July 14, 2016

제1심 판결을 취소한다. 피고는 원고 주식회사 한국**에 3,798,242,670원, 원고@@@에게 816,840,440원과 위 각 금액에 대하여 2011. 7. 1.부터 이 사건 소장 부본 송달일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 갚는 날까지는 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s explanation is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

○ The 'Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Realty Business' on the 2nd judgment of the first instance court.

○ “Calculation of the 16th day of the first instance judgment” by the 3rd day of the first instance judgment, “A Park shall include the 5th day of the first instance judgment.”

○ 10th 6th 10th 6th 10th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 200

Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1058, Apr. 12, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2016, Oct. 6, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2014, Oct. 16, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2016, Oct. 16, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20166, Oct. 16, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2014, Oct. 16, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20166, Oct. 16, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Oct. 16, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jan. 16, 2016).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.