Seoul High Court 2008Nu25601 (209.02.04)

The tax authority is obligated to add additional dues on refund from the next day after the payment of revaluation tax to such refund.

If the tax authority revokes the imposition disposition of revaluation tax and the revaluation tax is refunded, the defendant is obligated to add additional dues on refund to such refund from the day following the payment date of revaluation tax.

209du4050 revocation of revocation of disposition to collect revaluation tax additional dues

○ Stock Company

○ Head of tax office

The Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu25601 Decided February 4, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 56-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that "a corporation which intends to list stocks for the first time to the Korea Stock Exchange may conduct revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act by setting the first day of each month as the revaluation date, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 4 and 38 of the Assets Revaluation Act," and Article 9 of the Assets Revaluation Act provides that "a person who conducts revaluation shall pay a revaluation tax", and Article 23 (2) of the Addenda of the amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "where a corporation which conducted revaluation under Article 56-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act fails to transfer all or part of its assets to capital, it may appropriate a revaluation within the period of time from the date following the revaluation date to the date of payment of national tax refund under paragraph (1).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, etc., the lower court: ① (a) conducted revaluation of assets on the premise of listing stocks pursuant to Article 56-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (hereinafter “instant revaluation”) around October 1990; (b) issued a disposition of revaluation tax of KRW 12,513,027,680 (hereinafter “instant revaluation tax”); and (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s disposition of revaluation tax of KRW 6,300,000 as of December 28, 1990 and KRW 6,213,027,680 as of November 29, 200; and (d) determined that the Plaintiff’s disposition of revaluation tax of KRW 50 as of the date following the 195th anniversary of the instant revaluation tax was unlawful; and (d) the Plaintiff’s disposition of revaluation tax of KRW 12,513,027,680 as of December 31, 2003.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the initial date of the refund and additional dues as alleged in the grounds

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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.