logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2006. 10. 31. 선고 2006구합12630 판결
[경정거부처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff

Korean Teachers' Credit Union (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Seo-Jon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo Tax Office (Attorney Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 26, 2006

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of correction as of February 4, 2003 and March 4, 2005 shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

1. The defendant's refusal disposition against the plaintiff on February 4, 2003 against the plaintiff on December 31, 2002 against the plaintiff was revoked as to the plaintiff 79,405,456,720 won of interest income tax for the year 2000, 48,024,026,50 won of interest income tax for the year 201, 3,283,367,350 won of interest income tax for the year 2002, and the refusal disposition against the plaintiff on March 4, 2005 against the plaintiff on December 30, 2004 against the plaintiff on December 33, 202 as to the claim for correction as to the amount of interest income tax for the year 200,33,402,191,360 won of interest income tax for the year 201.

2. The collection disposition of each interest income tax made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on each notification date stated in the attached Form No. 1 shall be revoked.

3. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 349,338,240 of corporate tax for the business year 2000 against the Plaintiff, KRW 146,964,890 of corporate tax for the business year 2001, KRW 80,592,030 of corporate tax for the business year 2002, and KRW 20,345,290 of corporate tax for the business year 2003 is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6 (the part of Eul evidence 6; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 7 through 10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 14-1 through 48, Gap evidence 15-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1-1, 1-2, Eul evidence 2-3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1 through 46, Eul evidence 5-1 through 46, Eul evidence 7, and Eul evidence 7.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person that carries out benefits, loans, various welfare and welfare projects for its members, etc. by establishing an efficient mutual aid system for those who are or were in office as public educational officials, teachers and staff members, etc. of educational institutions, educational administrative agencies, or educational research institutions under the Korea Teachers’ Mutual Aid Association Act.

B. On July 25, 1998, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered authoritative interpretation that the Plaintiff’s payment of retirement life benefits constitutes “interest and discount amount of deposits received in the Republic of Korea” under Article 16(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s payment of the Plaintiff’s retirement life benefits is interest of the same nature as the deposits of financial institutions, such as banks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff started to withhold interest from January 1, 199 on the Plaintiff’s payment of wood, retirement life benefits, and general welfare benefits (hereinafter “the instant payment”). (The details of the tax withholding are as follows).

1,798, 583, 634, 720, 680, 4538, 888, 9208, 820, 688, 920, 820, 9205, 932, 901, 180, 10,7603, 431, 559, 5305, 6305, 76139, 318, 5205, 7618, 5205, 575, 2740, 408, 408, 408, 9637, 9639, 197, 196, 196, 196, 197, 204, 204, 3637, 3639, 207, 394, 3637, 29637, 394

C. On December 31, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction, correction, and refund of the amount of withholding taxes of KRW 3,283,367,350, and the amount of withholding taxes of KRW 3,283,367,350, among interest income taxes withheld at source with respect to the instant surcharge, 79,405,456,720, the total amount of interest income taxes attributed to year 200, and the interest income tax belonging to year 201, and the interest income tax belonging to January 2002. However, on February 4, 2003, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s reduction, correction, and refund on the ground that the instant surcharge constitutes interest income (hereinafter “the first correction and refund of this case”).

D. After that, on December 30, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction, correction, and refund of the amount of withholding tax of KRW 33,402,191,360 from February 2, 2002 to December 12 of the same year, among income tax withheld at source to the Defendant on December 30, 2004, and the Defendant again rejected the Plaintiff’s reduction, correction, and refund on March 4, 2005 due to the same reasons as the instant first correction and refusal of refund (hereinafter “instant second correction and refusal of refund”).

E. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the Plaintiff in early 2005, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff omitted the withholding of interest income tax on the wooden benefits and the aggregate welfare benefits paid to its members from January 200 to December 2003. From February 1, 2005 to May 2, 2005, the Defendant imposed a notice of collection and notification of the interest income tax accrued from 200 to 2003 (hereinafter “instant collection disposition”), including the details of the notice of the interest income tax in the separate sheet between 200 to 2003 (hereinafter “instant collection disposition”), and the corporate tax amounting to 349,338,240, 240, 2001 to 146,964, 890, 2002 corporate tax amounting to 80,50,509, 2030, 2039, 2039, 2039, etc.

F. On April 17, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on May 27, 2005 regarding the second correction and refusal of refund, and on September 15 of the same year, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed all the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 30 of the same year (each separate procedure was followed).

2. Defenses to present the safety;

A. The parties' assertion

With regard to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the rejection of the instant correction, second correction, and refund is an illegal disposition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s application for correction of the amount of interest income tax withheld on December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2004 is an administrative disposition that is the object of appeal litigation, not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, since there is no right to seek correction of the amount of income tax withheld on December 31, 200 and the Plaintiff as the withholding agent, and the decision of refusal of refund does not affect the existence or scope of the Plaintiff’s right to claim refund, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

B. Determination

(1) The part rejecting correction of each of the instant cases

㈎ 원고는, 원고가 국세기본법상 원천징수세액의 감액경정을 구할 법률상 근거가 없는 것은 사실이나, 조세법률주의, 조세평등주의와 납세자 주권 및 재산권·재판청구권의 보장이라는 헌법상 원리에 비추어 원고에게 원천징수세액의 경정을 구할 조리상의 권리가 인정되어야 하므로, 이를 거부한 이 사건 1, 2차 경정거부는 항고소송의 대상이 되는 행정처분이라고 주장한다.

㈏ 국민의 적극적 신청행위에 대하여 행정청이 그 신청에 따른 행위를 하지 않겠다고 거부한 행위가 항고소송의 대상이 되는 행정처분에 해당하려면, 그 신청한 행위가 공권력의 행사 또는 이에 준하는 행정작용이어야 하고, 그 거부행위가 신청인의 법률관계에 어떤 변동을 일으키는 것이어야 하며, 그 국민에게 행위발동을 요구할 법규상 또는 조리상의 신청권이 있어야 한다( 대법원 2003. 9. 23. 선고 2001두10936 판결 참조).

Therefore, as to whether the right to request the reduction or correction of the amount of withholding taxes is recognized, ① If a withholding agent collects and pays the amount of tax on income that is not subject to withholding tax from a source taxpayer, or exceeds the amount of tax to be collected, the State’s unjust enrichment holding such amount without any legal ground (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8780, Nov. 8, 2002). As such, the withholding agent can immediately file a lawsuit for the refund of overpaid or erroneously collected tax amount against the State. As such, unlike the disposition for revocation of general tax imposition, the pertinent lawsuit for the refund of withholding taxes cannot be deemed as having been directly and specifically remedy against the Plaintiff by seeking the refund of the amount of tax directly against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du8780, Apr. 1, 2007). 200-206, supra, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the amount of withholding tax under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is recognized as a statutory correction and payment of retirement income.

㈐ 따라서, 원고가 이 사건 1, 2차 경정거부를 다투는 부분은 항고소송의 대상이 되지 아니하는 부분의 취소를 구하는 것이어서 부적법하다. 피고의 이 부분 본안전 항변은 이유 있다.

(2) Each rejection of refund of this case

As seen earlier, if a withholding agent collects and pays the tax amount on income that is not subject to withholding from a source taxpayer, the State shall be unjust enrichment held by the withholding agent without any legal ground, and the provisions of Articles 51(1) and 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (including before and after the amendment by Act No. 7008, Dec. 30, 2003) stipulate the procedures for refund by the tax authorities as internal procedures for handling the national tax refund and additional dues for which the claim for refund has become final and conclusive, and the claim for refund can not be determined only by the national tax refund decision (including additional dues) decision. Thus, the determination of the national tax refund decision or the refusal of refund, etc. is not a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the tax payer’s claim for refund, and it cannot be deemed a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8780, Nov. 8, 2002).

Therefore, the part against which the Plaintiff’s refusal of refund 1 and 2 in this case seeks revocation of the part that is not subject to an appeal litigation and is unlawful. This part of the Defendant’s defense of safety is well-grounded.

3. Whether the collection and imposition disposition of this case are legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since Article 16 (1) 3, 11, and 12 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001; Act No. 6557, Dec. 31, 2001; Act No. 7006, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the above Act was amended by Act No. 4803 and amended by Act No. 7006, Dec. 30, 200), Article 16 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "interest on deposits" shall be subject to interest income tax, but the plaintiff does not constitute "interest on deposits" under Article 16 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act, which is defined specifically as "the amount of financial business of the plaintiff's deposit," and Article 16 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act does not constitute the plaintiff's deposit.

(2) In addition, the excess repayment of the Plaintiff Mutual-Aid Association is recognized as non-taxation subject to the tax exemption prior to the amendment of the Income Tax Act by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994. However, only under the above Act No. 4803, the excess repayment due to the worker's retirement or withdrawal is converted into taxation subject to the tax exemption. This fact is also specified in the tax reform bill of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (former Financial Department) on September 27, 1994, the non-taxation practice is established regarding the instant additional payment. Furthermore, the Defendant's collection and imposition disposition against the public view of the tax reform bill of the Ministry of Finance and Economy violates the principle of good faith.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence No. 13, and Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 22.

(1) On September 27, 1994, the Ministry of Finance and Economy decided to impose taxes on and after January 1, 1999 on the insured with a grace period of three years in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff is a mutual aid organization.

(2) The provisions of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation regarding membership eligibility, qualification, etc. are as follows.

[Articles of Incorporation]

Article 4 (Members) The members of the Mutual-Aid Association shall consist of general members and special members.

Article 4-2 (Qualifications for Admission)

(1) A person who is eligible to join a general member of the Mutual-Aid Association shall be a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That persons employed temporarily or on a condition shall be excluded:

1. Teachers, the superintendent of education, the head of a district office of education, school inspectors, school inspectors, educational research officials, and educational researchers under each subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of the Public Educational Officials Act;

2. State public officials or local public officials, other than public educational officials working in educational institutions, educational administrative agencies, or educational research institutions provided for in Article 2 (2) through (4) of the Public Educational Officials Act

3. Teachers and staff of private schools as provided in Article 2 (1) of the Private School Act; and

4. Officers and employees of the Mutual-Aid Association;

5. Executives and employees of hospitals established under the Act on the Establishment of National University-affiliated Hospitals and the Establishment of Seoul Seoul Dental Hospital (authorization of February 18, 2004);

(2) Persons who may join a special member of the Mutual-Aid Association shall be as follows:

1. General members, who are retirement age or honorary retirement, and who retire at the expiration of the term of office;

2. A person who has retired at least 60 years of age as an ordinary member;

3. Persons who retire from active service as prescribed in Article 44;

4. A person who has served not less than 10 years as a regular member and who reaches not less than 55 years of age (authorization on July 13, 195);

Article 5 (Acquisition of Qualifications) Members shall be qualified on the date on which the Mutual-Aid Association has paid the prescribed contributions in accordance with the procedures for admission.

Article 6 (Rights and Duties) Members shall have the duty to bear the prescribed contributions and the right to receive the benefits and other benefits or services from the Mutual-Aid Association.

(3) The provisions of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation concerning the Plaintiff’s capital, charges and benefits are as follows.

[Articles of Incorporation]

Article 29 (Capital) The capital of the Mutual-Aid Association shall be members' contributions, government subsidies and net profits generated from business.

Article 30 (Deficiency of Business) Deficits of business by Members' Charges shall be covered by the Government subsidies.

Article 33 (Amount of Charges)

(1) The amount of members' contributions shall be the number of shares, and long-term savings benefits of ordinary members shall be 600 won per unit (authorization on August 22, 2005).

(2) The amount of school children's benefits, wood payments, comprehensive welfare benefits, and retirement benefits shall be separately determined (it shall be authorized July 13, 1995, and authorized August 22, 2005).

Article 35 (Kinds of Assistances)

(1) Benefits for general members shall be as follows:

1. Long-term savings benefits (authorization on August 22, 2005);

2. The salaries of students;

3. Badon benefits (authorization on August 22, 2005);

4. General welfare benefits (authorization on July 13, 1995).

(2) Long-term savings benefits referred to in subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1) shall be classified into three types: retirement benefits, sickness benefits, and survivor's benefits (authorization on August 22, 2005).

(3) The salaries to special members shall be the retirement living allowances and the comprehensive welfare allowances (the approval of July 13, 1995, August 22, 2005).

Article 36 (Student's Benefits, Badon Benefits, Comprehensive Welfare Benefits, and Retirement Life Benefits)

(1) Matters concerning school children's benefits, tree pay, comprehensive welfare benefits, and retirement living benefits shall be separately determined (it shall be authorized July 13, 1995, and authorized August 22, 2005).

(2) A person who intends to subscribe to the faculty’s benefits and timber benefits shall be a regular member (authorization on August 22, 2005).

(3) Any person who intends to subscribe to a comprehensive welfare benefit shall be eligible to subscribe to a general member or a special member as referred to in Article 4-2 (1) and (2) (the approval of July 13, 1995).

(4) When a person who has subscribed to a comprehensive welfare benefit under Article 35 (1) 4 dies or loses eligibility for joining due to other reasons, the recipient may succeed to the relevant contract and maintain its effect (authorization on August 22, 2005).

(4) The kinds of benefits handled by the Plaintiff are as follows.

㈎ 장기저축급여(퇴직급여, 상병급여, 유족급여)

1. Amount of subscription (charges): Amount of 600 won per unit and amount of 500 - maximum account per unit and payment per month;

(b) Additional money: Payment in accordance with the “retirement benefit rate” during the period of payment of charges (which may be adjusted when the difference between the average interest rate on time deposits with one-year maturity in a commercial bank and the retirement benefit rate is at least 10% of the relevant rate);

(c) Payment of benefits: at the time of occurrence of reasons for retirement or withdrawal;

㈏ 목돈급여(종전 연금급여)

1) Retec savings instruments for incumbent teachers and employees, who operate the money of its members at a high interest rate, and reserve-type goods that receive the money at a time after payment every month during their subscription period (three years and five years) (in the case of a notice instrument introduced on the Internet bulletin board of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff introduced class 2 of the money of the money of the money of the money of the Plaintiff as “interest”).

2) Persons subject to insurance, etc.: General members (Article 36(2) of the Articles of Incorporation and Article 4 of the Rules on Lump Sum Benefits).

(iii) the amount of subscription (charges).

-for Class 1, 2, and 3 benefits, lump sum payment shall be one million won per unit of a Gu, up to one hundred - one hundred - one hundred - one hundred - one hundred - one hundred -

- Class 4 benefits may be admitted not less than 10,00 won per month to the maximum of 100,000 won (Article 6(1) of the Badon Benefits

4) Insurance coverage period: From the date on which an application for subscription is received to the expiration date of the benefits payment date: Provided, That Class 4 benefits shall be three years and five years (Article 6(2) of the Badon Benefits Rules)

5) Type of benefit (Articles 10 to 13 of the wooden Money Benefit Code)

- Class 1 benefit: Principal and interest on every three months, six months, and one year, and payment in installments, for each period of insurance coverage (one year to ten years);

- Class 2 benefits: A surcharge shall be paid every three months and every six months, and the principal shall be paid at the time when the benefit is claimed;

- Class 3 benefits: Payment of principal upon request;

- Class 4 benefits: The principal and additional payments when the amount of the charges is payable every month after maturity during the agreed period;

6) Additional money (Article 18 of the wooden Savings Rules): It shall be calculated by applying an additional rate of not less than the average interest rate of one-year term deposits in five commercial banks plus not less than 0.5 percent, however, the basic interest rate on time deposits shall be adjusted on the basis of the interest rate on the first day of each month.

㈐ 퇴직생활급여(종전 종신급여)

1) The old age security system for retired teachers and employees who received various pensions or retirement benefits at the plenary session upon retirement of a member (a notice form introduced on the Plaintiff’s Internet bulletin board) and operated at a high interest rate (a notice form introduced on the Plaintiff’s Internet bulletin board, and the Plaintiff introduced the supplementary payment form as “interest payment form”, “interest”, “a life pension type,” and “interest”).

2. Persons subject to insurance, etc.: Members who have subscribed to long-term savings benefits, and retire from the age limit, honorary, expiration of a term of office, injury or disease, and at least 60 years of age, and teachers and staff who have retired from office after opening a long-term savings benefit for at least ten years

3) Subscription amount (charges) (Article 6 of the Regulations on Retirement Benefits): Additional dues, accumulation type (three years, five years), life-long pension type, and fixed pension type; subscription amount may be subscribed to up to 60 unit (300 million won) per unit (five million won per unit); accumulation type shall be 10,000 won per month; and subscription amount shall be available up to 10,000 won per month.

(iv) kind of benefits (Articles 8 through 11 of the retirement living allowance rules);

- Additional penalty: The additional penalty shall be paid monthly or annually until the principal is requested, and the principal shall be paid at the request.

- Accumulation type: Payment of principal and surcharges at once on maturity;

- Life annuity type: A payment of principal and added money in installments each month or year;

- A fixed pension type: A installment payment for each month or year during the insurance coverage period (the principal and additional amount extinguished upon the expiration of the insurance coverage period);

5) Additional dues (Article 22 of the Retirement Benefit Code): Additional rates shall be calculated by applying the addition rates in excess of the average interest rate of one-year term deposits in five commercial banks plus 0.5% on the average of the basic interest rates of five-year term deposits in the remaining principal according to the kinds of salaries, however, the basic interest rate for term deposits shall be adjusted based on the interest rate on the first day

㈑ 종합복지급여(저축성 급여)

1) Persons subject to insurance, etc.: General members and special members (Article 36(3) of the Articles of Incorporation);

(b) Type of subscription: Guarantee benefits, savings benefits [the suspension of subscription from January 1, 2004 to insured persons eligible for guarantee benefits (Article 23 of the General Welfare Benefits Rules), and the suspension of subscription];

3. Amount of subscription: 10,000 won per share of monthly payment, semi-annual payment, annual payment, and lump-sum payment, which may be admitted up to 30,000 won per share (30 million won).

(d) Insurance coverage period: 3 years, 5 years.

5) Additional dues: the same shall apply to the surcharge for a wooden money.

6) Payment of benefits: Payment upon termination and cancellation of a contract.

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant surcharge constitutes interest income under Article 16(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act

The benefits of this case are limited to the former and current teachers and staff, and unlike the financial institution in the process of accounting, the Plaintiff included the amount of the benefits of this case as capital in the account settlement.

However, the meaning of deposit interest rates in advance refers to a certain ratio of interest income generated from a commercial bank to a certain amount. Since the Plaintiff received funds from 10,000 won per month ( Class 4 benefits) to 100 million won in a lump sum according to the membership form of the general members, and a certain amount of additional interest rate applied to the average interest rate for one-year term deposits in commercial banks (3 years and 5 years) shall be paid at the expiration of the subscription period. The retirement life benefits or general welfare benefits are basically similar to those in this case, and thus, they shall be paid at a certain rate based on the basic interest rate for six fixed term deposits in commercial banks to the Plaintiff for the purpose of paying interest income generated from the above 10-year interest income generated from the above 10-year interest income generated from the above 10-year interest rate for the first time. However, the Plaintiff’s retirement benefits in addition to the above 1-year interest rate for the purpose of operating the 1-year interest income generated from the above 1-year interest rate for the Plaintiff’s retirement benefits.

The plaintiff asserts that the concept of "deposits" under Article 16 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act was borrowed from the concept of deposit under the Depositor Protection Act. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff does not include the scope of the insured financial institution dealing with deposits under Article 2 (1) 1 and 2 of the Depositor Protection Act. However, the Depositor Protection Act was enacted on December 29, 195 after the imposition of interest income under the Income Tax Act (Act No. 5042 of December 29, 1995). The legislative intent of the Act is to protect depositors, etc. by efficiently operating the deposit insurance system in order to cope with situations in which the financial institution is unable to pay deposits, etc. due to its bankruptcy, and it is different from the Income Tax Act for the purpose of imposing interest income. The plaintiff's assertion in this part cannot be accepted.

(2) Whether the non-taxable practice and the principle of good faith are violated

㈎ 비과세관행 성립 여부

In order for a non-taxable practice to be established under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there must be an objective fact that has not been taxed over a considerable period of time, and there must be an intent that the tax authority does not impose tax due to any special circumstance even though the tax authority knew that it is able to impose tax on the matter. Such public opinion or intent should be expressed explicitly or implicitly. However, in order to indicate an implied expression, there must be circumstances that the tax authority expressed its intent not to impose tax on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7855 delivered on September 5, 2003). The burden of proof for the existence of such non-taxable practice is borne by the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10837 delivered on September 5, 2003).

Although it is true that the Defendant did not take active taxation measures on the instant surcharge before 1999, the fact that the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant expressed explicitly or implicitly the Plaintiff the intent not to impose tax on the instant surcharge. Unless there is any other evidence to acknowledge it, it cannot be deemed that the non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has been established on the instant surcharge. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

㈏ 신의성실의 원칙 위반 여부

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax legal relations, the tax authorities should express the public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers, and the taxpayer should not be responsible to taxpayers for the trust that the tax authorities' statement of opinion is justifiable, and the third, the taxpayer should act in trust and what is the taxpayer's statement of opinion. Fourth, the tax authorities' disposition against the above statement of opinion should result in infringing the taxpayer's interest, and the public opinion statement of the tax authorities should be made by the tax officials in a position of responsibility in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1233, Jul. 22, 2004).

Therefore, it is true that the Ministry of Finance and Economy decided to impose tax on the excess repayment of workplace mutual-aid associations from January 1, 1999 in the "Matters modified by the State Council on Sep. 27, 1994" as to whether the Defendant expressed the public opinion that is the object of trust in the disposition of collection and imposition in this case against the Plaintiff, or that such circumstance alone, it is difficult to view that the principal agent and the subject of the disposition are not against the Plaintiff, and unless there is any other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the collection and imposition in this case were unlawful against the principle of trust and good faith without the need for further determination of the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the instant collection and imposition disposition are legitimate dispositions under Article 16(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking correction and revocation of rejection of refund among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful. Thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)

arrow