The case holding that even if the actual acquisition price of real estate exceeds the actual acquisition price, the defect in the reporting act does not constitute a reason for invalidation as a matter of course.

Even if there is a defect in which the tax base and tax amount are excessively reported in excess of the actual acquisition value of real estate in the act of filing a return on acquisition tax, etc., the case held that the defect in filing a return on unjust enrichment is not an objective apparent ground, which is the reason for invalidation as a matter of law, solely on the ground that there is no error in the calculation process of the purchase price, and that there is no error in the calculation process of the purchase price, and the tax base and tax amount are excessively reported on the wind to enter the amount equivalent to the actual purchase price as the purchase price in the calculation process of the tax base and tax amount, and furthermore, there is no circumstance to suspect that the purchase price stated in the sale and purchase contract, which is in excess of the actual purchase price, is entered in the sale price. Furthermore, even though the taxpayer filed an objection within the period of filing a lawsuit on the ground that it was erroneous in the calculation as alleged in the above, and even if the taxpayer received a decision of rejection, it did not raise any further appeal.

Article 741 of the Civil Act; Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 120(1), 150-2(1), and 260-4(1) of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Na6040 Decided July 21, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of supplementary appeal submitted after expiration of the period are to the extent of supplement) are examined.

The lower court determined that the Defendant is obligated to return the excessive tax base and tax amount as unjust enrichment, on the ground that the act of filing a return on the instant acquisition tax, etc. exceeds the actual acquisition value, and that the excessive acquisition value falls under approximately 39% of the actual acquisition value, and such defect is serious, as it is objectively apparent that the actual acquisition value was incurred in the process of converting the acquisition value by shares of each co-owner, and thus, it is objectively apparent that it falls under the invalidation of the per se.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, there is no entry or involvement of the tax authority in the process of filing the tax base and tax amount of the acquisition tax, etc. of this case on the part of the plaintiff, and the tax base and tax amount are excessive on the wind stated in the calculation of the office members belonging to the plaintiff in the course of preparing the sale and purchase contract. Furthermore, there is no circumstance to suspect that the sale price stated in the sale and purchase contract, which is in excess of the actual purchase price, is stated in excess of the actual purchase price. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff filed an objection within the period for filing a lawsuit on the ground that there was an error in the calculation as alleged in the above, and the plaintiff did not raise any further appeal even if he received the decision of rejection on the ground that the return was made within the period for filing a lawsuit, and the return of unjust enrichment of this case is filed on the same ground after the lapse of one year, it is difficult to view that the defect of the reported act was objectively apparent.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defect in the act of filing a return, such as acquisition tax, was null and void as it is significant and apparent. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation of a return as to local tax, which is a tax by the method of tax payment, which affected the remaining decision. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)