Seoul Eastern District Court 201Na8081 (Law No. 23, 2011)

It does not constitute unjust enrichment unless the filing of a report is void as a matter of course.

In a tax by the method of return, unless the filing of a taxpayer's return is void as a matter of course due to a grave and obvious defect, it shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment.

2011Da91470 Return of Unjust Enrichment

1. The Parties 2. AB

1. Seoul Special Metropolitan City 2. Korea

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011Na8081 Decided September 23, 2011

July 25, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

As a matter of principle, taxes in the method of tax return, such as registration tax and registration tax, are determined specifically by a taxpayer’s act of determining his/her tax base and tax amount, and such act of payment is the performance of specific tax liability confirmed by the return. As such, the State or a local government retains the tax amount paid based on the determined tax claim, so long as the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return does not automatically become null and void due to a serious and apparent defect, it cannot be immediately deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, whether the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return constitutes abruptive invalidity due to a significant and apparent defect, should be determined reasonably by examining the purpose, meaning, and function of the laws and regulations on the basis of the filing of the report, and legal remedies for the defective filing of the report, as well as by individually identifying the specific circumstances arising from the filing of the report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da11618, Apr. 27, 2001; 209Da501, Apr. 23,

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court maintained the first instance court’s conclusion that it is difficult to view that there is a significant and obvious defect in the Plaintiffs’ filing of this case registration tax, acquisition tax, etc.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidity of a

2. On the second ground for appeal

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all of the Plaintiffs’ preliminary claims on the grounds that public officials belonging to the Defendants did not take corrective measures against the Defendant Republic of Korea on the ownership of the instant real estate in the registry, and there is no evidence to support that public officials belonging to the Defendants caused damage to the Plaintiffs by violating the Acts and subordinate statutes intentionally or negligently while performing their duties. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is also justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on State liability due to the omission by a public official, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.