Seocho 2009west 1673 (Law No. 19, 2011)

No person who is not a party to a judgment may serve as the ground for subsequent request for correction

According to the key judgment of this case, the transaction based on which the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount of value-added tax of this case were calculated for the remaining members except the parties to the judgment of this case, i.e., each member contract entered into with the Plaintiff and concluded with the Plaintiff, cannot be deemed as a case where the above transaction of the supply of the above penalty substitute payment service becomes null and void by the judgment in the lawsuit related thereto. Thus, the key judgment of this case does not constitute a ground for filing

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2011Guhap34566 The revocation of revocation of request for rectification

AAAAAAA corporation

Head of the District Tax Office

March 20, 2012

April 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 15, 2008 against the first installment of value-added tax for the first installment of 2001, value-added tax for the first installment of 2001, value-added tax for the first installment of 2001, and value-added tax for the second installment of 2001 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After the establishment of January 15, 1999, the Plaintiff engaged in a penalty-free payment business with the contents of collecting subscription fees and annual fees from vehicle owners and paying penalties for traffic violations by its members. On December 24, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s above business activities constituted “the act of receiving money without permission” under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission (2001Do205). Accordingly, the Plaintiff suspended the above business at the end of 2002 and reported the suspension of business to the Defendant.

B. The plaintiff's members filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the above membership contract becomes null and void, and the Seoul East Eastern District Court rendered a judgment that "the penalty payment business of this case was impossible from the beginning because it fell under the business prohibited by the law, and the contract between the plaintiff and the members was null and void. Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to refund each member's subscription fee to the tax authorities, and the value-added tax that the plaintiff paid from the member's transaction collection can be refunded from the tax authorities, and thus, it shall not be deducted from the return of subscription fee (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decisions 2002Ga5147 delivered on March 7, 2003; 2002Ga3035 delivered on July 3, 2003; 2002Ga2725 delivered on July 29, 2003, etc.).

C. On July 25, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the National Ombudsman in accordance with the instant prior ruling, and filed a claim for refund of KRW 000,000,000, which was paid from l99 to 2000. The National Ombudsman recommended the Defendant to refund the value-added tax on September 26, 2003. The Defendant accepted the said recommendation on November 18, 2003, and refunded the value-added tax amount to the Plaintiff.

D. After August 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for refund of value-added tax of KRW 00 billion paid from the first to the second period of 2002 on the ground of the instant preceding judgment, on August 22, 2007, since it was erroneous or erroneous. However, the Defendant rejected the claim.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on November 13, 2007. On October 15, 2008, the National Tax Tribunal decided that the value-added tax from the first scheduled portion of the year 2001 to the second scheduled portion of the year 2001 among the value-added tax claimed by the Plaintiff on October 15, 2008 shall be excluded from those subject to refund, and that the value-added tax shall be refunded from the second final portion of the year 201 to the second final portion of the year 2002. Accordingly, the Defendant refunded the value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff from the second final portion of the year 201 to the second final portion of the year 202.

F. Meanwhile, among the plaintiff's members, part of the plaintiff's member [158 persons, 92 persons among them joined between January 1, 2001 and September 30, 2001, and 00 won per capita (the amount of value-added tax shall be KRW 000)] filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment on February 20, 2007. The Seoul Central District Court decided on August 14, 2008 that "the plaintiff's business activity constitutes a prohibited business and thus it is impossible to conduct this act from the beginning, each member's contract between the plaintiff and the members becomes null and void, and therefore the plaintiff is liable to return the membership fee received from each member as unjust enrichment, and that the value-added tax included in the membership fee shall not be deducted from the amount of the subscription fee returned (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da54274 decided August 14, 2008)."

G. Upon the judgment of the key issue of this case, the Plaintiff filed a correction claim of this case on September 30, 2008 for the reduction, correction, and refund of the total value-added tax for the first term portion of 2001 and the second term value-added tax for the second term portion of 2002, on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for filing a subsequent correction claim had occurred in relation to the value-added tax for the first term portion of 2001 and the second term value-added tax for the second term portion of 2001, 000 won for the first term portion of 201, and 000 won for the second term portion of value-added tax for the second term portion of 201 (hereinafter “value-added tax”), but the Defendant rejected it on December 15, 2008.

H. On March 17, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 17, 2009. On July 19, 201, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff’s tax base and the amount of value-added tax ( = 000 won x 92) on 92 persons who participated in the instant taxable period among the members who directly filed a lawsuit in relation to the instant judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1, 2, 3, 6 through 9, each of the types of evidence (including the number of pages)

Second, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key issue of this case is that the plaintiff's act of business (payment in lieu of penalty) constitutes a business prohibited by law and thus becomes null and void for the first time, and thus, it is confirmed that the act of providing services pursuant to the law in relation to all members as well as the parties to the judgment of this case was null and void. Therefore, the key issue of this case is that the judgment of this case is unlawful for refusing the plaintiff's request for correction, even though the plaintiff's act of providing services on the basis of the tax base and the amount of tax for the remaining members as well as the value-added tax (value-added tax in this case) on the member who directly brought a lawsuit is confirmed to be different by the judgment of this case, and thus the plaintiff's act of offering services on the basis of the tax base and the amount of tax for the penalty payment in lieu

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to expand the protection of taxpayers’ rights by allowing taxpayers to file a request for reduction of tax base and amount of tax due to the occurrence of a certain subsequent cause after the establishment of tax liability. “When one transaction or act, etc., as provided for in Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, becomes final and conclusive as different by a judgment regarding the relevant lawsuit” means not only the case where the existence or legal effect of the transaction or act, etc., which was the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of tax, becomes final and conclusive after the first and conclusive judgment on the transaction or act, becomes final and conclusive, but also the case where the first settlement of the transaction or act, etc., becomes impossible after the conclusion of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for correction was concluded with the Plaintiff for the first time after the conclusion of the judgment on the relevant tax base and amount of tax, but also all the issues of the Plaintiff’s claim for correction, excluding the above-mentioned facts and the remaining issues of the Plaintiff’s respective provision of tax base and amount of tax are invalid.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.