Return of Unjust Enrichment

It is deemed that the income tax is paid to the person to whom the income is attributed on the day of receipt of the notice of change of income amount, and it becomes finalized simultaneously with the establishment of liability to pay the income tax withheld at that time, so the income tax paid by revised return after receiving

Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes establishes Tax Liability

Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 130,110,610 won with 5% interest per annum from January 21, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged according to each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation running the building design, supervision, etc. Around November 2002, the Defendant conducted a corporate tax investigation on the Plaintiff on the business year of 2001. Of the outsourcing service expenses reported by the Plaintiff as included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount, the Defendant notified the original on December 24, 2002 of the content of the income change notice as follows: (a) the sum of KRW 263,125,119 among the outsourcing service expenses reported by the Plaintiff as deductible expenses; (b) KRW 359,135,119 of the total amount of KRW 263,125,119 of the welfare expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, office supplies expenses, and expendable goods expenses; and (c) the said amount was not included in deductible expenses in deductible expenses; and (d) the said amount was an unclear expense for Nonparty ○○, the representative of the Plaintiff at the time.

B. Accordingly, on January 21, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the withholding of tax on earned income to the Defendant, and voluntarily paid the difference of KRW 130,110,610 (hereinafter “the income tax of this case”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the plaintiff withheld and paid the income tax of this case to the defendant although he did not have a withholding duty against the tax authority, and the defendant made unjust enrichment without a legal title. Thus, the defendant asserts that he has a duty to pay the above amount to the plaintiff.

A. First, the plaintiff is not liable to withhold income tax from the tax authority, since the defendant merely notified the content by the notice of change in income amount and no income tax is imposed.

B. Next, even though it is clear that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 300 million out of the amount of processing expenses to Nonparty ○○○, a representative director of ○○○, for the purpose of investing in sports facility business, the Defendant’s disposal of the said amount was clearly erroneous because it was not included in corporate tax and it was not clear that the said amount would have been attributed to ○○○, a representative of the Plaintiff at the time. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to withhold taxes against the tax authority

3. Determination

A. First of all, with respect to the assertion that the Defendant paid the pertinent income tax without any legal ground because the income tax is not imposed, there is a liability to pay the income tax withheld at the time when the income amount or income amount is paid at the same time (Articles 21(2)1, 22(2)3, and 22(2)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In determining or correcting the corporate income amount under the Corporate Tax Act, the dividend, bonus, and other income disposed of shall be considered to have been paid on the date when the notice of change in income amount is received (Article 135(4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 192(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). Since the income tax liability for withholding was established on the date when the notice of change in income amount was received, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the income tax liability for withholding is not an automatic fixed method, but a taxation method is not an automatic one.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that KRW 300 million out of this amount was lent to the head of ○○○○, Inc. for the purpose of investing in the sports facility business can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 30 million from his own account on December 20, 2001 and deposited the above amount into the account of ○○○ on the same day. However, the above fact alone is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s assertion was not related to KRW 263,125,119, total sum of KRW 359,135,119, and KRW 300,000 and KRW 3300,000,000 among the outsourcing service expenses reported by the Plaintiff as inclusion in deductible expenses in the income amount, and there is no evidence to support that there was insufficient evidence to support each of the above assertion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.