In the event that the amount of refund of customs duties exceeds the amount of refund, the legality of imposing an additional duty on the excess portion of the refund.

Since all citizens are liable to pay taxes under the conditions as prescribed by the Act, there must be legal grounds for the imposition of taxes, so in case where the person who has contributed to the manufacture, processing and use of the goods for export purposes prepares and uses false documents and receives a refund of the amount which is more than the amount to be refunded from the customs collector, there is no ground for the imposition of customs duties again for the excess amount. Thus, the tax disposition is an administrative disposition that is void.

Article 33 of the Constitution, Article 32 of the Customs Act

Gyeongsung Co., Ltd. and one other

Head of Busan Customs Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 2,048,432 as of January 18, 1973, of KRW 612,226, and of KRW 266,065 as of February 2, 197, of KRW 133,03 as of February 18, 197, and of KRW 1,207,20 as of January 18, 197, of KRW 291,983, and of KRW 149,918 as of KRW 149,918 as of February 2, 197.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The fact that the Defendant imposed each taxation on the excess amount on the grounds that the Plaintiff et al. requested the Defendant to refund customs duties and special duties pursuant to Article 32 of the Customs Act, and submitted a false certificate of raw material requirements, etc. necessary for this request, thereby deceiving the Defendant and got refunded more than the amount to be refunded from the Defendant, does not conflict between the parties.

Even if the plaintiff et al. received a refund from the defendant more amount than the amount that should be refunded in accordance with Article 32 of the Customs Act as alleged by the defendant, as the plaintiff et al. claimed by the defendant, the state should exercise its right to claim the refund of the excess amount under the general civil procedure with respect to the amount that should be refunded, and since the tax cannot be imposed under the pretext of additional collection, such as this case, it is argued that each disposition is void as a matter of course. Thus, since all citizens claim that the tax should be imposed as prescribed by the Act (Article 33 of the Constitution), it must be legal basis for imposing the tax. Accordingly, if the person who used the goods paid for the purpose of manufacturing and processing the goods to be exported prepares and exercises a false document and receives a refund more amount than the amount that should be refunded from the customs collector, the grounds for imposing the customs tax and the special tax can not be found in accordance with the Customs Act and subordinate statutes with respect to the excess amount. Thus, each disposition of imposition is an administrative disposition that is void as a matter of law.

However, in the event that the amount of refund of customs duties under Article 32 of the Customs Act exceeds the amount of refund, the customs duties are the same as the unpaid amount within the scope of the excess amount. Thus, even if the defendant's legal representative took the form of additional duty to return the excess amount, it cannot be deemed unlawful. However, if the amount of refund exceeds the amount of refund, as alleged above by the defendant's legal representative, if the amount of refund exceeds the amount of refund of customs duties to the extent of the excess amount, then even if the customs duties are unpaid, the liability for the payment of customs duties arises again and all requirements for collection thereof must be stipulated in the law. Thus, the above argument is groundless

Even if each of the above dispositions is unfair, the defendant et al. asserts that the plaintiff et al. returns the amount to be returned to him and there is no infringement of any rights, and thus there is no interest in the lawsuit. However, as seen above, the plaintiff et al. can seek revocation of each of the above dispositions in the sense that the plaintiff et al. is liable to return the excessive refund amount to the civil state as alleged by the defendant et al., and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no interest in the cancellation of each disposition in the sense that the plaintiff et al. is liable to return the excessive refund amount to the civil state as argued by the defendant et al.

If so, each disposition of this case is considered to be null and void as a matter of course, so the plaintiff et al.'s claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Seole Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)