logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2019. 10. 11. 선고 2019가소56810 판결
매매계약이 합의해제된 경우 납부한 양도소득세가 부당이득인지 여부[국승]
Title

Whether the capital gains tax paid is unjust enrichment where a sales contract is terminated;

Summary

If the defect in the taxation disposition is limited to the extent that the tax disposition can only be revoked, the payment of the tax due to it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment unless the tax authority voluntarily revokes it or revokes it by the appeal procedure.

Cases

2019 Ghana56810 Unlawful gains

Plaintiff

Kim AA et al.

Defendant

Korea

Conclusion of Pleadings

2019.09.20

Imposition of Judgment

oly 11, 2019

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Kim Jong-ok 5,67,760 won and 10,415,060 won and 12% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

In order to make an unjust enrichment, the tax payment or tax collection must be null and void as it has no legal basis at all in substance or in procedure, or as it is apparent and apparent the defect of the taxation disposition. If the defect of the taxation disposition is limited to the extent that the tax disposition can only be revoked, the taxation authority’s own revocation or revocation by the appeal procedure cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Da54, Jul. 7, 1987). Although the taxation requirement of the capital gains tax was subsequently lost due to the termination of an agreement among the plaintiffs, barring any circumstances to deem that the taxation requirement of the capital gains tax under the plaintiffs’ report is null and void as a matter of course, the BB head of the tax office or the CCC head of the tax office voluntarily cancels the said taxation disposition, or there is no evidence to support that the said disposition was revoked by the appeal procedure, barring any legal basis to seek a return of the tax base based on the initial return of the capital gains tax return by denying the validity of the disposition (see, e.g., the plaintiff’s claim for return of the tax return to the defendant).

arrow