In addition to additional dues on refund at the time of refund, additional dues on refund shall be paid.

As long as the national tax refund system is the procedure incidental to the collection of national taxes and the provisions on the collection of national taxes are applied mutatis mutandis, it is reasonable to add additional dues on refund to the national tax refund by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on additional dues on refund to the national tax refund even if the refund is returned. This law applies likewise to the case of refund due to additional dues

Articles 51 and 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014 Gohap500864 The national tax refund

AAA Corporation

Korea

on 014 07 09

on January 13, 2014

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 3.7% interest per annum from June 16, 201 to February 29, 2012, 3.7% interest per annum, 4% interest per annum from the next day to February 28, 2013, 3.4% per annum from the next day to January 16, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 1, 1989, the Plaintiff conducted a revaluation of assets (hereinafter referred to as "reevaluation") on the premise of listing stocks under Article 56-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of revaluation tax OO (hereinafter referred to as "reevaluation tax of this case"). B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total amount of OO tax including OOO on November 27, 1989, 190, OOOOOOO, 290, 1990, OOOOOOOO, 290, 1990, 200, 200, 200, 1000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 20, 200, 20, 30, 30, 300, 30, 300, 30.

E. On October 2, 2006, the Plaintiff paid OO members to the Defendant in accordance with the instant restitution disposition, and filed a lawsuit seeking its revocation. The court held that “the Defendant is obligated to add additional dues from the date following the date when the Plaintiff paid the revaluation tax of this case pursuant to Article 52 subparag. 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes to the refund amount. Therefore, the prior restitution disposition of this case was unlawful on a different premise, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 26, 201.

F. Accordingly, on June 15, 2011, the Defendant returned OO Won paid to the Plaintiff according to the instant restitution disposition (hereinafter “the instant refund”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) does not have any provision regarding cases where the head of a tax office received a refund of a national tax refund under Article 51(7) on the grounds of erroneous refund or excessive refund to the national tax refund appropriated or paid, but the refund amount is to be returned on the grounds of erroneous refund or excessive refund. However, insofar as the refund of a national tax refund is the procedures incidental to the collection of national taxes and the provisions on the collection of national taxes are applied mutatis mutandis, it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis the provision on additional refund to the refund of a national tax refund even in cases where the refund amount is returned to the Plaintiff. Such legal principle also applies to cases where the refund of a refund amount is returned upon satisfaction of the refund amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da20769, Oct. 31, 2013).

The refund amount corresponding to interest on the refund must be appropriated first (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da60767, Jan. 11, 2002). D. Therefore, since an OO of the refund of this case is appropriated first for the total amount of OO members of the refund refund of this case and the remaining OO members are appropriated for part of OO members of the refund refund following the cancellation of the redemption disposition of this case, the Defendant ultimately has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff OO and its interest at once from June 16, 201 to February 29, 2012, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (No. 205), Article 3.7% per annum under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and from the following day to February 28, 2013, Article 19-3 and Article 14 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (No. 262) and Article 213-14 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified.