1. Whether the disposition of imposition may exist at the time of payment in cases where taxes are voluntarily reported and paid (affirmative);

2. Whether a disposition of imposing tax, based on a wrong opinion, can be viewed as a legitimate invalidation in a case where the opinion can be divided due to the ambiguity of legal provisions (negative)

1. Even in cases where a taxpayer voluntarily files a tax return and pays a tax under the Corporate Tax Act and the Defense Tax Act, it shall be deemed that there exists a confirmed disposition of taxation by an administrative agency at the time of such payment.

2. In a case where the opinion can be divided in the interpretation of the Defense Tax Act due to the ambiguity of legal provisions, a tax imposition disposition imposed by a tax official belonging to the defendant according to the opinion of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the custom is merely a mistake of legal relations as to the tax rate of the taxable object, and it can be cancelled merely because the defect is significant and obvious.

Article 26 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 31(1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 4(1)3 of the Defense Tax Act; Article 5(1) and (3) of the Defense Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Nu29 delivered on September 27, 1962 (Article 1 (141), Article 1162 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 (4), Article 2 (45), Article 2 (48), Article 70Nu46 delivered on July 28, 1970 (Article 1 (240), Article 1 (244), Article 1174 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 9063 house 18 ②69 delivered on April 12, 1983, Article 82Da501 delivered on April 12, 1983 (Article 31 ②84Gong70511 of the Civil Procedure Act)

East Asia Construction Industry Corporation

Korea

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 49,653,204 won with 25 percent interest per annum from the day following the day when a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant litigation performer cannot be deemed to have taken an administrative disposition that is the defendant's acceptance of the plaintiff's defense tax return and payment. Even if the plaintiff's defense detailed disposition is considered to be a defense detailed disposition, which is an administrative disposition, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant's defense detailed disposition should first be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, only when the plaintiff files an objection, a request for examination, or a request for judgment, and is dissatisfied with the result, and then the result thereof should be decided by the administrative litigation method. However, the plaintiff filed the civil lawsuit of this case without going through the prior procedure of objection, a request for examination, or a request for judgment as above. However, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful and dismissed. However, the plaintiff's defense of this case is a significant fact that the plaintiff seeks a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the already paid defense tax on the premise that the defense detailed disposition and the disposition are null and void (the premise that the above disposition had not been taken as a preliminary action). In such a case, the above defendant's defense is groundless.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) No dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence 1-1 (Tax Return) 2, 3-1 of the same identification number 2, 4, 6-2, and 3-2 through 5 of the evidence 3-2, the plaintiff shall apply the above amount of tax calculated by deducting the total amount of tax paid to the defendant 2, 36-14, 36-1, 46-2, 36-1, 47, 46-1, 46-2, 36-1, 47, 46-1, 47, 36-1, 46-2, 47, 36-1, 47, 46-2, 36-1, 47, 47, 46-1, 46-2, and 54, respectively, to the defendant under the above provision of the Corporate Tax Act; and

B. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff’s tax amount deducted pursuant to the provisions of Article 24-3 of the Corporate Tax Act does not give preference to the said taxpayer under tax policy, but is characterized by deducting the tax amount already paid in a foreign country to prevent double taxation on the same income for the sake of equity in tax burden. Thus, the defense tax rate is not 25/100 under the proviso of Article 4(1)3 of the Defense Tax Act, but is not 25/100 under the above provision. Thus, the Defendant’s tax amount and defense tax amount on the income for the business year 1980 and the above tax amount cannot be applied under the above provision of Article 4(1)3 of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, the Defendant cannot claim that the above foreign tax amount should be deducted from the basic tax rate of 50/100 under the proviso of Article 4(1)3 of the Defense Tax Act (25/100), and thus, the Defendant cannot claim that the above foreign tax amount should be deducted from the above tax amount of 250/18/68%.

Therefore, Article 26 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of December 28, 1979) at the time of the imposition of the corporate tax and the defense tax in this case provides that "any domestic corporation liable for tax payment shall file a written report on the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax on income for each business year as prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 15 days from the date on which the settlement of accounts for each business year is determined." Article 31 of the same Act provides that "any domestic corporation that has filed a return under Article 26 shall submit a written report on the tax base of the corporate tax on income for each business year calculated by applying the provisions of Article 22 to the tax base of the reported tax base of the corporate tax and defense tax (excluding penalty tax) shall be paid to the government for each business year." Article 5 (1) of the Defense Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of December 31, 198) provides that "No tax return and defense tax amount shall be deemed to exist in the above tax return and defense tax payment pursuant to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the above tax reduction and exemption cannot be applied to the above defense-free administrative disposition by the defendant 1 and the above defense-free administrative agency because it is not clear that the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption cannot be applied to the above defense-free administrative disposition by the defendant 1 and it cannot be applied to the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 4 (1) 3 of the Defense Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3198 of Dec. 28, 1979) because the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption cannot be applied to the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption of corporate tax by the defendant 1 and the evidence No. 4-2 (Evidence No. 6-2), and the evidence No. 5-2 (Evidence No. 3), and the defendant cannot be applied to the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption of corporate tax for the reasons that the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption cannot be applied to the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption of corporate tax for the reasons that the above defense-free tax reduction and exemption rate would be different from the above tax reduction and exemption rate of corporate tax.

C. Second, even if the plaintiff's voluntary declaration and payment of the defense tax of this case are deemed to be finalized immediately by the plaintiff's voluntary declaration and payment without the defendant's separate defense detailed statement and disposition, the plaintiff paid the defense tax of this case (the amount equivalent to 12.5 percent of the penalty tax rate and the additional tax for revised return) by the tax official under defendant Usan's erroneous legal interpretation and judgment, and due to administrative guidance, the defendant gains profits equivalent to the above amount without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the above amount, and thus the defendant is obligated to return the amount of unjust enrichment. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion should be interpreted to exist at the time of tax return and payment under the above voluntary declaration payment system, rather than the imposition tax system. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

D. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the return of the plaintiff's objection on the premise that part of the defense tax paid by the plaintiff to the corporate tax on the business year income of 1980 was unjust by the defendant, is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Jong-Ie (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-dae Korea