Where the amount of tax reported and paid by a taxpayer in a tax return method constitutes unjust enrichment and method of determination;

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 30(1)1 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010) (see current Article 35(1)1 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes), and Article 115 (see current Article 18 of the Local Tax Act)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da60363 Decided December 5, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 192) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81257 Decided April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 730)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Il, Attorneys Han Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeollabuk-do

Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Na5015 decided May 28, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Tax in the method of return and payment shall, in principle, be determined by the taxpayer’s own determination of tax base and amount of tax and by the taxpayer’s filing of a return, and its payment is the performance of the specific tax liability confirmed by the return, and the State or a local government retains the tax amount paid based on such finalized tax claim. The State or a local government shall not immediately constitute unjust enrichment unless the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return is null and void as a result of a serious and obvious defect. Here, whether the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return constitutes abruptive invalidation shall be determined by considering the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy for the defective filing of a return on the grounds of the relevant laws and regulations, and at the same time, by individually identifying and determining the specific circumstances arising from the filing of the return (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da60363, Dec. 5, 1995; 2006Da81257, Apr. 23, 2009).

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on September 17, 2009, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff actually acquired the instant ○ factory; and (b) the Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant real estate through division of property subject to divorce, lack of requirements for imposing acquisition tax; (c) although it cannot be deemed that each of the instant declarations on acquisition tax cannot be deemed as having serious and apparent defects; and (d) it cannot be deemed as null and void as

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the concept of acquisition or the legal doctrine on the invalidity of a report as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)