beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul High Court 2012Na68035 (Seoul High Court 2013.010)
Title
Even if there is a serious defect that misleads the other party to taxation, it is apparent that it is abrupt invalidation in appearance.
Summary
In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and there is a difficulty in deeming it as void as a matter of course because it is the case where it can be clarified only when it should accurately investigate the facts.
Cases
2013Da201424 Return of unjust enrichment
Plaintiff-Appellant
AAA District Housing Association
Defendant-Appellee
Korea
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na68035 Decided January 10, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
May 23, 2013
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to automatically invalidate a taxation disposition, the mere fact that there is no illegality in the disposition, and the defect must be objectively apparent, as well as in violation of laws and regulations. In order to determine whether the defect is grave and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the pertinent taxation disposition should be examined from a teleological perspective as well as rational consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself. However, in a case where there are objective reasons to believe that the legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation are not subject to taxation and the factual relations, if it is apparent that it would be subject to taxation accurately, it cannot be deemed that the defect would be apparent even if it is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership of the pertinent real estate under the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Association or the Plaintiff Association was not subject to taxation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the ownership of the pertinent property under the name of the Plaintiff Association or the Plaintiff Association.