In a case where Company A, a non-listed corporation, paid revaluation tax on the premise of listing stocks under Article 56-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, but did not list stocks by December 31, 2003, which is the listing deadline, and where the tax authority cancelled the disposition imposing revaluation tax and paid additional dues for refund from the next day after the refund date, and thereafter issued a disposition to recover additional dues for refund, the case affirming the judgment below that the tax authority is liable to pay additional dues for refund from the next day of the payment date pursuant to Article 52 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the disposition to recover additional dues is unlawful.

In a case where Company A, a non-listed corporation, engaged in insurance business, etc., conducted a revaluation of assets on the premise of listing stocks under Article 56-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and paid revaluation tax according to a tax authority’s disposition of revaluation tax, the case affirming the judgment below that the tax authority’s disposition of revaluation tax was revoked and its disposition of revaluation tax was redeemed on the ground that Company A did not list stocks by December 31, 2003 under Article 23 (1) of the Addenda to the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1990), and Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was listed on December 31, 2003, and the additional payment of revaluation tax was erroneously paid from the next day to the date of refund, and thus, the tax authority’s disposition of revaluation tax was revoked under Article 23 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1360 of Dec. 231, 2009).

Article 52 subparag. 1 and 5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006), Article 56-2(1) (current deletion) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 38 of the former Assets Revaluation Act (amended by Act No. 5531 of Apr. 10, 1998), Article 4 and 9 of the Assets Revaluation Act, Article 23(1) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sejong District Court Decision 201Hun-Ga46 delivered on September 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu25090 decided February 4, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 56-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that "a corporation intending to list stocks for the first time to the Korea Stock Exchange may conduct revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act by setting the first day of each month as the revaluation date, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 4 and 38 of the Assets Revaluation Act." Article 9 of the Assets Revaluation Act provides that "a person who conducts revaluation shall pay revaluation tax." Article 23(1) of the amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "where a corporation which conducted revaluation under Article 56-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act fails to list its stocks to the Korea Stock Exchange by December 31, 2003, it shall not be deemed that it has made a refund under the Act or its reassessment within the period of 130.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revoked the corporate tax of 1.3 of April 1, 198 and 2 of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff listed shares under Article 56-2 (1) of the former Assets Revaluation Act (hereinafter “instant revaluation”) and imposed a revaluation tax of 6,795,74 won (hereinafter “instant revaluation tax”) on November 1, 1989 on the Plaintiff, and determined that the Defendant did not list some of the revaluation tax of 2 of this case on June 29, 1989 and paid the remainder to the Plaintiff on May 30, 190, and 30 of this case’s revaluation tax of 190 to March 31, 1994.

Examining the foregoing provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the initial date of the refund and additional dues claimed in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)