Whether there is a benefit to confirm the invalidity of the taxation disposition by the taxpayer who has paid the imposed tax amount.

Since a taxpayer who has already paid the tax amount imposed upon the imposition of Class A earned income tax at any time does not bear the current tax liability according to the said imposition, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the tax amount paid on the ground that the said disposition is null and void is a separate issue, and there is no benefit of confirmation that the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the tax amount is filed as an independent lawsuit

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. and one other

Head of Seoul Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 72Gu271 delivered on May 29, 1974

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, since the plaintiff already paid the tax amount imposed on Class A earned income and its tax amount imposed on the defendant's principal claim that the plaintiff is null and void, it is clear that the plaintiff does not bear the current tax liability according to the above disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the tax payment is a separate issue, and the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the tax payment is a separate lawsuit to confirm invalidity of the disposition of this case, and there is no interest in confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 63Nu122 delivered on October 22, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 64Nu4 delivered on June 16, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 74Nu238 delivered on November 25, 1975). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no grounds for appeal that criticizes the judgment of the court below based on the dissenting opinion. The appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who lost the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant.

The minority opinions of the judge of the Supreme Court in the civil petition, Dong-gu, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong Kim Yong-dong are as follows:

The gist of the Majority Opinion of the instant case is as follows: (a) the tax payer has already paid the imposed tax amount.

Since it is clear that the plaintiff does not bear the current tax liability according to the disposition, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is a separate issue and the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is not a legal interest in confirmation by an independent lawsuit to nullify the invalidity of the disposition of imposition. The plaintiff's explanation on this point is based on the original decision, 63Nu122 delivered on October 22, 1963 and 64Nu238 delivered on November 25, 1975.

In addition, after considering the above reasoning of the judgment and the reasoning of the main decision, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff does not have any tax obligation against the defendant when the plaintiff who is the taxpayer has paid the tax amount. Accordingly, the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of imposition is a confirmation of the existence of tax obligation and that the plaintiff has already paid the tax, and thus, there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the current rights and obligations, and there is no difference between the plaintiff and the defendant, and only the reasons therefor are different.

Therefore, the Majority Opinion is clear that it is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation for taxation, which is the longer rights and obligations, arising from the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the taxation disposition. However, if the inherent defects in the taxation disposition are grave and apparent, such disposition cannot take effect from the beginning as an invalidation disposition, and even if the disposition is believed to be null and void as it exists in its form, it is likely that the disposition would actually be executed or executed as long as the disposition disposition is asserted to be valid, it cannot be sufficient to seek confirmation of the current legal relationship which is not used on the premise of invalidity, and it is also difficult for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of invalidity of the taxation disposition based on the premise that it is null and void in its form and void, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of the validity of the taxation disposition under the former Framework Act on National Taxes from the point of view that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of the validity of the taxation disposition under the current legal system for seeking restitution of the taxation disposition by asserting that there is a significant and apparent defect in the taxation disposition.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)