Cases of refusal of a request for correction filed after the lapse of three years from the statutory due date of return, which are brought in the form of a party litigation as an appeal litigation case.

The lawsuit of this case brought in the form of a party litigation is illegal and is brought in an appeal litigation, even if it is filed in the form of an appeal litigation, which is a rejection disposition after three years have elapsed since the statutory due date of return elapses, shall not be subject to the Do and administrative sect

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

District Court 2015Guhap1262

Is 00

Korea

May 3, 2016

June 7, 2016

1. To dismiss the litigation of this case;

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,60,742 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim to the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 26, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 56,000,000 at KRW 00,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and registered as a general taxable person, and on October 25, 2010, filed a return of early refund of value-added tax at KRW 3,60,742 with the input tax amount due to the purchase of fixed assets.

B. On December 1, 2010, the head of the tax office issued a revised and notified the decision that the instant real estate was confirmed to be eligible for tax exemption (house lease), and that the Plaintiff refused to refund the value-added tax, and that the said KRW 3,600,742 was deducted from the input tax amount, thereby imposing an additional tax of KRW 360,074 at the same time when the amount of tax is reduced to KRW 0,074. Thereafter, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the said additional tax that was imposed on the Plaintiff on February 11, 2011.

C. On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Defendant’s refusal to refund value-added tax against the Plaintiff is unreasonable and that the Defendant would request the Defendant to refund KRW 3,600,742. On July 9, 2015, the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that it is impossible to file a request for correction since the Plaintiff filed a request for correction after three years from the statutory due date of return, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

Inasmuch as erroneous payment or tax refund, whose existence and scope are already determined, can be claimed by a taxpayer as a party suit seeking return of unjust enrichment. However, in a case where the tax authority rendered a decision of correction that reduces the amount of refundable tax or increases the amount of refundable tax pursuant to Article 21(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act on the grounds that a taxpayer had an omission or error in the tax base return or the amount of refundable tax, etc., the confirmation of a tax obligation arising from the initial return cannot be maintained. Therefore, the taxpayer’s objection to the determination of correction by the said tax authority and the initial return to receive the amount of refundable tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du7520, Oct. 26, 201). Since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for revocation of the original return of refundable tax amount, the Plaintiff’s initial return of refundable tax amount and the amount of refundable tax can not be seen as an unlawful return of the Plaintiff’s tax return under Article 21(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12136, Dec. 121, 20, 2013).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.