beta
Title
If the defect in the taxation disposition is unreasonable to the extent that it can only be revoked, the payment of the tax thereby cannot be considered as unjust enrichment.
Summary
In order to make an unjust enrichment, the tax payment or the collection of a tax shall be null and void as it has no legal basis at all in substance and legally procedurally, or the defect of the tax disposition is significant and apparent, and the defect of the tax disposition is limited to the extent that the tax disposition can only be revoked, unless the tax authority voluntarily cancels it or cancels it by the appeal procedure, the tax payment shall not constitute unjust enrichment.
Related statutes
Article 51 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Cases
2012Return of unjust enrichment by a taxpayer 896865
Plaintiff
literatureA
Defendant
Korea
Conclusion of Pleadings
October 31, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
November 14, 2012
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from February 5, 2009 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff paid the value-added tax on KimB by the intention of subrogation.
2. In order to make a tax erroneous or erroneously paid, a tax payment or a tax collection has no legal basis in substantive and procedural aspects, and the tax disposition’s defect must be null and void as it is significant and apparent, and the tax disposition’s defect can only be revoked, unless the tax authority voluntarily cancels it or cancels it by the appeal procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da2800, Nov. 11, 1994).
3. However, there is no evidence that the defect in the disposition of value-added tax (or recovery) against KimB is serious and clear, and the defect alleged by the plaintiff is merely a cause of revocation. In such a case, unless the revocation of the above disposition (or recovery) is prior to it, the court, which denied the effect of the above disposition (or recovery), cannot be deemed as an unjust benefit without legal cause.