Return of Unjust Enrichment

It is deemed that the income tax is paid to the person to whom the income is attributed on the day of receipt of the notice of change of income amount, and it becomes finalized simultaneously with the establishment of liability to pay the income tax withheld at that time, so the income tax paid by revised return after receiving

Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes establishes Tax Liability

Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 130,110,610 won with 5% interest per annum from January 21, 2003 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 complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around November 2002, the Defendant investigated the corporate tax for the business year 2001 with respect to the Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the construction design, supervision, etc., as a result of the investigation of the corporate tax for the business year of 2001. On December 24, 2002, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the details of the investigation by considering the total of KRW 96,010 and welfare expenses for the outsourcing service, vehicle maintenance, transportation expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, book printing expenses, office supplies expenses, and 263,125,119 out of the expense for the processed goods as the processing expenses, as the non-deductible expense, and the above amount as the expense for which the ownership is unclear.

B. Accordingly, on January 21, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the withholding of wage and salary income to the Defendant, and voluntarily paid the difference of KRW 130,110,610 (hereinafter “instant income tax”).

(Evidence) Evidence No. 1, 8 through 13, Evidence No. 1, 2, and 4, respectively, 1, 2, 3, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not impose any income tax, but only notified that the Defendant disposed of the income as a result of the recognition of ○○ by only the notice of change in the amount of income. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to withhold the income tax of this case. Therefore, since the amount equivalent to the income tax of this case that the Plaintiff withheld and paid to the Defendant is unfairly obtained without legal title, the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the Defendant’s taxation on the income tax of this case exists, 300,000,000 out of the amount that the Defendant considered as processing expenses was leased to ○○○○○ representative director, Inc. for the purpose of investing in the sports facility business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the income by deeming it as expenses for which it is unclear, is clearly erroneous, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the income tax of this case which the Defendant unduly unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there is no obligation to withhold taxes

According to Articles 21(2)1 and 22(2)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, when income tax withheld at source is paid, a liability to pay income tax withheld at the time of paying the amount of income is established, and at the same time a liability to pay tax is determined without any special procedure. According to Article 135(4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 192(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in determining or revising corporate income under the Corporate Tax Act, dividend, bonus, and other income disposed of shall be deemed to have been paid on the date

As can be seen, where the tax authority’s disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income is given, the tax withholding agent is deemed to have paid the relevant amount to the person to whom the income as stated in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income and becomes final and conclusive at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878, Apr. 20, 2006). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part premised on the fact that the Plaintiff’s tax withholding liability arises, even if there is a separate disposition of imposing income tax from the Defendant’s notice of change

B. As to the assertion that the ownership of a loan for investment purposes is clear

On December 1, 2001, the Plaintiff’s board of directors approved the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s joint business with ○○○○ Co., Ltd. on December 20, 201. On December 20, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff to lend KRW 300,000 to ○○○○○○ for the purpose of running a citizen’s cultural sports facility business. The Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 300,00,000 from the deposit account under the Plaintiff’s name on December 20, 201, and Kim○○ transferred KRW 300,000 to the account under the name of ○○○○○ on the same day.

However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the above loan 300,000,000 won of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the money directly related to the Defendant’s 300,000,000 won out of the above 359,135,119 won as the Defendant’s processing expense, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit without further need to examine the remainder of the issue.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed without any reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it has no reason to appeal.