When the head of a tax office pays the refund of national tax, he/she shall pay additional refund of national tax.

Where there is a tax refund to be refunded, the head of a tax office shall determine the refund of national taxes, and where the refund of national tax is paid, the additional payment on the refund of national taxes should be added (Articles 51(1) and 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that additional payment on the refund of national taxes should be added,

Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014 Gohap67697 Action demanding payment of refund money, etc.

O General Construction

1.Korea 2.The Director of the District Tax Office

The director of Samsung District Tax Office calculated the amount of value added tax for the first period of 2007 against the plaintiff.

The notice was given that it would be reasonable. Such notice would be an administrative agency’s undertaking or an expression of public opinion.

Defendant Republic of Korea constitutes the Plaintiff’s amount of value added tax for the first period of 2007

have the obligation to pay.

2) Determination

Gap evidence 1, 5, or 9, witness lightA, or voluntaryB's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

In addition, the following facts may be recognized:

① Around 2006, the Plaintiff newly built and sold a main apartment and reported and paid value-added tax.

On April 5, 2011, when the sales contract was cancelled with multiple buyers, the head of Samsung Tax Office filed a claim for correction of value-added tax from the first to the first half of 2007 in April 19, 2012.

② The Plaintiff: (a) the sales contract; (b) the notice of cancellation; and (c) the receipt and withdrawal of sales proceeds to Gyeong;

The method for calculating the amount of joint purchase tax, in which copies of the gold account, the details of refund of sales revenue are entered, the X-cell file and the details of refund;

Relevant data were submitted.

(3) On July 19, 2012, the GyeongA shall make the following results of the review of the request for revision by facsimile to the Plaintiff.

The notice (hereinafter referred to as the "fax document of this case") was sent, and there was a statement that calculated the amount of refund (presumed) tax from the first period of 2007 to the first period of 2011 was attached.

(4) The plaintiff receives the "Notice of the Results of Examination of Correction Request (Income Amount)" from the Gyeong, and the estimated tax amount for refund.

On July 30, 2012, the ordinary amount of refund was corrected and notified again to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2012.

⑤ On November 19, 2012, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the deadline for filing a claim for correction and the exclusion period for exclusion from imposition of the tax on the grounds therefor.

the first-year value-added tax in 2007 shall be determined not to pay a refund, and the Plaintiff shall be determined not to pay a refund.

The notification was made.

According to the facts of recognition, the Minister of Samsung tax affairs in charge of Samsung shall request for the correction of value-added tax filed by the plaintiff.

In order to make a decision on data from the plaintiff, data received from the plaintiff shall be requested and data received from the plaintiff shall be sought.

The Fax document of this case calculated the Plaintiff’s tax amount. The Fax document of this case

Documents sent to confirm whether the result calculated on the basis of the material is correct, and the original documents

In order to point out the high-priced tax omission and correct it and notify it again. The Fax document of this case

by means of this section to prevent the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, from being at a disadvantage due to a mistake in the calculation;

It seems that the plaintiff had been given an opportunity to examine.

In full view of these circumstances, the Fax document of this case is the refundable amount by Defendant Samsung Head of the Tax Office.

It is nothing more than one of the materials referred to in the final decision, and the refund by Defendant Samsung director of the tax office.

It is difficult to view it as a document containing the determination of the amount of value-added tax. Since Defendant Samsung Tax Office finally decided not to pay a refund on November 19, 2012, it cannot be deemed that the instant facsimile document alone became final and conclusive for the first time in 2007. Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea does not have an obligation to pay the amount of value-added tax refundable for the first time in 2007, and Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

C. Determination on the claim for national tax refund additional charges

1) Obligation to pay national tax refund and additional dues

When the head of a tax office pays national tax refund, he/she shall pay additional refund on national tax refund.

§ 52 of this title.

The director of Samsung District Tax Office may add value to the Plaintiff from the second to the second half of the year 2007.

The taxes shall be refunded, but the additional payment on the refund of national taxes shall not be paid as mentioned above.

However, the director of the tax office shall determine the refund amount as the national tax refund.

In addition, when the national tax refund is paid, additional payment on the national tax refund should be added to the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Articles 51(1) and 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Article 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that additional payment on the refund of national taxes should be added.

There is only a provision that the refund of national tax should not be added to the refund of national tax.

Therefore, the value-added tax from the second to the second period from 2007 to 2008 by the Head of Samsung Tax Office

As long as the refund is decided, additional dues shall be paid in addition to the additional payment on refund of national taxes.

there is no legal basis for holding the shares.

2) Calculation of the additional payment on refund of national taxes

The payment deadline of the final return of value-added tax for each year shall be calculated as the initial date of calculation.

Myeon 372,223,325 won.

D. Sub-determination

Accordingly, the defendant Republic of Korea paid additional refund on the refund of national tax to the plaintiff KRW 372,223,325 and this is applicable thereto.

From September 30, 2014, the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea is obliged to dispute over the existence and scope of the additional payment on the refund of national taxes until October 23, 2015, which is the date of the decision of this case, to pay 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Samsung director of the tax office

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Fax document sent to the Plaintiff by the Head of Samsung District Tax Office is written if there is no error in calculation.

It is an expression of intent to refund taxes and a commitment with self-defense power.

The instant decision is an illegal disposition that violates a binding undertaking.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Fax document of this case is finally refundable by Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office.

The process of preventing errors in calculation as one of the data referred to in the decision;

in writing only is the act of sending the instant facsimile document. The act of sending it is as described above.

An administrative act or self-defense that contains the intent of the director of the Samsung Tax Office to refund the tax;

It is difficult to view that Defendant Samsung Tax Office constitutes the instant facsimile document. Therefore, Defendant Samsung Tax Office’s instant facsimile document

Unlike the statement in this case, the decision of this case cannot be deemed unlawful. It is not so different.

The plaintiff's assertion on the premise is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is justified within the above scope of recognition.

of this chapter. The remainder of the claim against the defendant and the claim against the plaintiff Samsung T&O shall be dismissed.

this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.

September 22, 2015

October 23, 2015

1. Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay 372,223,325 won and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from September 30, 2014 to October 23, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant's Republic of Korea and the claims against the defendant Samsung director of the tax office are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant Republic of Korea, respectively, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Samsung director.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay 1,248,733,343 won and 1,053,741,448 won among them at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day on which the part of the complaint of this case was served to the same day. Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay 372,223,325 won an amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day when the part of the complaint of this case was served to the day of the same day. Defendant Samsung Tax Office’s disposition rejecting the correction of value-added tax for the first period of November 29, 2012 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification with the director of the tax office for the refund of value-added tax from the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2011.

B. On November 19, 2012, the head of Samsung Tax Office did not pay a refund on the grounds of the deadline for filing a request for correction and the Doing of the exclusion period. ② The value-added tax from the second to the second period of the year 2007 has expired, but the court determined ex officio correction and refund from the civil petition for grievance, but decided not to pay additional dues, and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter “instant decision”). The Plaintiff filed an objection on January 31, 2013, but dismissed on March 15, 2013. Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2013, the value-added tax related to the disposition of refusal to rectify the first period of the year 207 was dismissed on June 23, 2014, and the remaining claims were rejected, and the purport of the appeal against the Defendant No. 1 and No. 2455, May 21, 2014, including the remaining claims for adjudication [the grounds for appeal against the Defendant No. 1 and No. 21].

A. As to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

1) Defenses prior to the merits

The lawsuit of this case is filed by the plaintiff after filing a return on the value-added tax base and tax amount, claiming for correction due to the dispute in the final return act after voluntary payment, and it is not claimed for the payment of the final value-added tax refund.

In this case, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2) Determination

Inasmuch as the State’s duty to pay the value-added tax to a taxpayer is specifically determined by the Value-Added Tax Act and the public law obligation specifically recognized from the perspective of tax policy, the State’s duty to claim the refund of value-added tax against a taxpayer ought to follow the procedures of a party litigation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da95564, Mar. 21, 2013). In addition, in a lawsuit seeking the payment of value-added tax, a taxpayer may contest the existence or scope of the amount of tax returned pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes. In this case, the Plaintiff sought a claim for the payment of the amount of tax refundable on the premise that the Defendant Republic of

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits cannot be accepted.

B. As to the claim for the refund of value-added tax at No. 1 in 2007

1) The plaintiff's assertion