The instant taxation disposition cannot be deemed nonexistent or null and void as a matter of course.

In order to make an unjust enrichment, the tax payment or the collection of tax must be null and void as there is no legal basis at all in substantive or procedural law or the defect of the tax assessment is significant and apparent.

2016 Ghana 114883 Undue gains

AAAA

Korea

December 15, 2016

January 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 157, a commercial class, a commercial class, and the plaintiff a copy of the complaint of this case.

By the day, 15% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. As a result of conducting a tax investigation related to transaction order with the Plaintiff, the director of the BB tax office determined that the tax invoice as listed below (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) submitted by the Plaintiff at the first time value-added tax return for the second and second years 2008 and 2009 was issued even if the said tax invoice was not supplied or supplied.

B. On October 2010, the director of the BB Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that: (a) the Plaintiff would impose corporate tax 11; (b) the wage class; (c) the wage class; (d) the wage class; (d) the wage class; (e) the wage class; (e

Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied to the director of the BB tax office for an early decision on the tax base and tax amount, and the director of the BB tax office decided on November 30, 2010 to impose value-added tax 19, 308, 2008, 19, 2008, 2009, 72, 2009, 113, 113, 200, 30, 30, 44, 44, 30, 300, 200, 209, 2009.

C. BB head of the tax office received or collected value-added tax 113 from CCC, ED, and EE from the secondary tax obligor of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from November 2010 to June 2016, 2016, 157, capital gains, capital gains, capital gains, and additional tax 44, 157, 157, capital gains, and capital gains.

D. The director of the BB Tax Office accused the FF of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director to the prosecutor’s office under suspicion of free trade and purchase accounts. On August 201, 201, the Plaintiff and FF were subject to a disposition of “not suspected of being suspected of” from the O.O.’s office.

한편, 주식회사 GG의 대표자 겸 FFF의 남편인 JJJ은 2011. XX. XX. OO지방법원 201X고단XXXX 조세범처벌법위반 사건에서 무죄 판결을 받았고, OO지방법원 201X노XXXX호로 항소되었으나 항소기각되어 2011. XX. XX. 위 판결이 확정되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence Nos. 1 to 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the processing transaction, which served as the basis of the instant taxation, was revealed to be a substantial transaction, the instant taxation disposition is void or nonexistent, and thus, the Defendant’s possession of the amount equivalent to the instant taxation disposition constitutes unjust enrichment without any legal ground, and thus, ought to be returned.

B. Determination

(1) For the purpose of making an unjust enrichment by mistake in taxation, the tax payment or tax collection should be null and void as it has no legal basis at all in substance or in procedure, or the defect of the tax disposition is significant and apparent, and when the defect of the tax disposition is limited to the extent that the tax disposition can only be revoked, the payment of the tax resulting therefrom cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment unless it is revoked by itself or by the appeal procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da28000, Nov. 11, 1994). Furthermore, in order to make the tax disposition null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an unlawful ground for the disposition is insufficient, and it should be objectively and objectively obvious that the defect violates the important law, and in determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law that serves as the basis for the pertinent taxation disposition should be reasonably examined, and it cannot be deemed that there is a significant and objective error in the taxation disposition or its defect within the scope of 20.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the tax authority: (a) there was a circumstance to determine the instant tax invoice as the processed tax invoice; (b) even if there was a real transaction in compliance with the instant tax invoice between the Plaintiff and GG, etc., as alleged by the Plaintiff, the tax authority may clarify whether the instant tax invoice has been issued in a normal manner; and (c) therefore, the defect of the instant tax assessment cannot be deemed evident. Meanwhile, the fact that the BB head of the tax office imposed the instant tax disposition on the Plaintiff around October 2010 is as seen earlier, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax assessment did not exist. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the absence of the instant tax assessment or the rightful invalidation is without merit.

① The JJ, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s representative FF and the other party to the instant tax invoice, is between husband and wife.

② On December 2010, the Plaintiff received notice of the result of the tax investigation from the head of XX. BB tax office, and applied to the head of BB tax office for an early determination of the tax base and tax amount.

③ The FF stated that the pertinent tax invoice was received from the tax office and the police without real transactions. The JJ reversed the statement that “The F would have been recognized as a processing transaction after hearing the speech that the tax investigation would be allowed if the tax office continues to be denied from the tax office and the police office.” However, during the investigation conducted in BB, it recognized that the number of the instant tax invoices was a processing transaction.

④ On 201, the Plaintiff and FF were subject to the disposition that they were suspected of being suspected of having reached XX. The JJ was indicted for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds of the suspicion of receiving false tax invoices, including the instant tax invoices, and the judgment of innocence was finalized on XX. around 2011.

⑤ Despite the fact that the value-added tax and additional tax imposed by the instant taxation are not significant, the Plaintiff was either paid or collected in full without raising any specific objection thereto. Moreover, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition that the Plaintiff was suspected of having been issued a final verdict of acquittal, or the said tax was paid after the judgment of the JJ became final and conclusive.

(6) The prosecutor's disposition of suspicion and the court's judgment of innocence are merely based on the fact that the evidential materials proving that the transaction was false are not discovered, and the tax invoice of this case is not actively determined as real transaction.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.