As long as a taxation claim is not invalidated, the disposition on default following it shall be valid.

As long as a tax claim is not null and void, seizure and collection due to it shall be legitimate and shall not request a return of the delinquent taxpayer by deeming it unlawful.

Article 741 of the Civil Act: Contents of Unjust Enrichment

2013dada 3169 Unlawful gains

AA Industry Corporation

Korea

April 28, 2015

June 2, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 59,510,697 won with 5% interest per annum from May 2, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Receiving the Defendant’s deposit money

1) On October 0, 1997, the head of the Regional Construction and Transportation Management Administration deposited KRW 55,591,500 as compensation for the deposited money under the name of 00,000 Do 67-3, and five parcels owned by 00,000 Do 67-3, and 5 parcels owned by 00-00.

2) On September 8, 1997, the Defendant’s BB director of the tax office (the Enforcement Rule of the Organization of the National Tax Service and its affiliated agencies succeeded to the authority of the AA director of the tax office as amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 150 on July 1, 2000) attached the amount claimed for payment of the above deposit amount to KRW 621,108,880.

3) The Defendant received dividends of KRW 53,456,230 out of the deposited money under the jurisdiction of 00 district court 00 on October 00, 1998 as 198 Tag187.

4) On October 0, 2003, the Defendant requested withdrawal of the deposited money to a court of 00 00 :0 district court, and received the total of KRW 59,510,697 including interest KRW 6,054,467 (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”).

‘The receipt of this case’ is called ‘the receipt of this case’.

B. The defendant's imposition of taxes and disposition on default against the plaintiff

1) On October 0, 1997, the director of the tax office BB imposed a corporate tax of KRW 1,662,013,840 [=the additional corporate tax of KRW 209,193,620 relating to the transfer of real estate other than 00,000,000 and KRW 200 + the corporate tax of KRW 14,303,550 related to the non-use of the technology development reserve + the corporate tax of KRW 00,00,000,000 and KRW 1,27,575,60 (210,941,070) related to the transfer of real estate other than 0,000,0000 and KRW 30,000,000,000,000 and KRW 30,000,000,000,000 and KRW 70,70,000,000,000.

2) AB director of the BB tax office and the AA director of the AA tax office have determined and notified the corporate tax (including special surtax) for the business year 197 and the amount equivalent to KRW 947,314,960 for the gains from the transfer of assets through the above attachment and the disposal of public auction. On October 2002, the BB director of the BB tax office and the AA director of the AA tax office have determined and notified the corporate tax (including special surtax) for the business year 1997 as the item of the corporate tax (including special surtax) for the business year 101,267,710 for the business year 1999 and 3,384,200 for the business year 200 and 330,736,150 for the business year 200,736,000 according to the audit and inspection register on the acquisition value.

C. Deduction of the instant deposit money

On October 2003, the defendant deducted the amount of the principal tax and the amount of the additional dues as shown in the table from 41,230,740 won in the principal tax for the business year 2001, among the amount of the principal tax and the amount of the additional dues in arrears as stated in the table as of October 203.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-4, 5-5, Gap evidence 6-3, 4, Eul evidence 2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 30, 1995, the CCC, etc. paid KRW 1,662,013,840 in arrears with the Plaintiff’s corporate tax, and the head of BB imposed double taxation on the Plaintiff as seen earlier, and imposed double taxation, on May 2, 1997, the attachment and public sale of the Plaintiff’s property 1,662,013,840 square meters and three other parcels owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of default with the Plaintiff’s corporate tax 1,662,013,840, and then imposed double taxation. Such double taxation disposition is null and void, and the above attachment and public sale disposition as a procedure for delinquency with the invalid imposition is also null and void, and the imposition disposition on gains from transfer of assets arising from the invalid attachment and public sale is also null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the amount received in this case’s unjust enrichment without any legal grounds by appropriating the amount received in this case, even though there is no delinquent tax.

B. Determination

In a civil lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment of the amount appropriated according to the assertion of invalidity of an administrative disposition, such as a disposition on tax or a disposition on default based on such disposition, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the ground that the administrative disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6030, Oct. 10, 1992). Generally, a tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation, income or act, etc. which is subject to taxation, shall be deemed to have a significant and apparent defect. However, in a case where objective circumstances exist that make it possible to believe that a certain legal relation or fact which is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation and that it is subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relation, it cannot be deemed that the defect is obvious even if it is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal disposition that misleads the fact of taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that the Defendant imposed double corporate tax already paid by CCC, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the disposition of corporate tax in the business year 2001, which the defendant deducted, is double taxation, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.