logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가합543340
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 390,255,940 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 10, 2018 to October 25, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day following the declaration of bankruptcy with respect to the Komato Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Toma Savings Bank”).

(U.S. District Court 2012Hashes23). (b)

A on May 15, 2008 and October 13, 2009, the sum of KRW 5 billion was loaned from the Mapo Savings Bank and took over bonds with warrants for a long time with eropic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic epic e

(hereinafter “instant gift tax”). C.

On October 23, 2013, the head of Sungnam District Tax Office appropriated KRW 2,502,466,510 of the gift tax of this case for KRW 2,502,506,538,40 of the gift tax of this case to KRW 2,387,504,830 of the gift tax of this case and KRW 114,964,680 of the additional dues of KRW 114,830 of the gift tax of this case and KRW 4,071,890 on October 23, 2013, the following day notified the Plaintiff of the appropriation for the national tax refund of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as "additional dues") d. 14,964,680 won (hereinafter referred to as "additional dues").

On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the unpaid gift tax amounting to KRW 1,271,430,010 (=additional KRW 881,174,070, KRW 390,255,940, which was not paid among the instant gift tax).

(B) Additional dues amounting to KRW 390,255,940 (hereinafter “Additional dues”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. ① In the instant case, one of the grounds for claiming a return of unjust enrichment with respect to the surcharge is nothing more than the method of attacking the non-existence of a contract, cancellation, invalidation, cancellation, etc., and thus, one of the reasons is nothing more than the same.

arrow