Daegu District Court 201Gohap14545 (2012.04.05)

The amount of refundable tax erroneously paid can be recovered by a civil lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment by the State.

Even in cases where the State paid the amount of gift tax to a specific heir by mistake in paying the amount of gift tax refundable, the State may recover such erroneously paid amount in a civil lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment, as it does not have any legal ground from the beginning.

Article 51 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Na20117 Unlawful gains

Korea

GAA 4 others

Daegu District Court Decision 201Na14545 Decided April 5, 2012

September 19, 2012

October 10, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendants in excess of the order to pay the following is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the cancelled part is dismissed. The Plaintiff, while the Defendant A, and CB, and E, respectively, are paid 00 won, and 00 won for the Defendant A, E, and E, respectively, for the 00 won and each of them, from December 1, 201, for Defendant A, E, and E, and for Defendant B, and E, from January 10, 201 to October 10, 2012, 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and ninety percent by the Defendants respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff, defendant AA, and YB are 00 won, each of which is 00 won, each of which is 000 won, and defendant A, and PE are 000 won and each of them is 5% per annum from March 11, 2009 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

The first instance judgment is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The reason why this Court shall explain is, and the 2nd to 6th to 2nd to 6th to 10th to 10th to 10

It is the same as the corresponding part in the first place, and it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

After the 8th disposition of inheritance tax by the director of the Namgu Tax Office, the Defendants’ refund amount (the Defendants’ refund amounting to KRW 000, each of the Defendants’ YA, and YB, KRW 000, each of the Defendant YE, and KRW YD00) received by the Defendants after the 8th disposition of inheritance tax by the director of the Namgu Tax Office. As such, the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment and pay the Plaintiff the above amount and damages for delay after the above payment date. Furthermore, the Plaintiff had the obligation to pay the Plaintiff as the return of unjust enrichment. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s objection suit of this case (Seoul District Court 209Da13297, Daegu High Court 2010Na78444, and Supreme Court 2011Da3806666), and through the 2011Da3800666, the Defendants did not have to have any choice but to claim the above refund from the Defendants, and the above judgment against the Defendants cannot be confirmed in the above lawsuit.

B. Defendant AA

(1) The claim for the return of the Defendants’ refund amount is related to the claim under public law, and can only be made according to the procedure such as the determination and revocation of the national tax refund under Article 51(7) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and cannot be made by civil procedure.

(2) The Defendants’ refund money in this case is that the inheritance tax was refunded for the portion reduced according to the disposition of correction, which was collected without legal grounds, by the director of the tax office in the absence of a tax payment notice to the Defendants, and has the right to hold it against the Defendants.

(3) In the instant lawsuit, the issue is whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking objection is subject to a non-performance of compulsory execution against the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have any ground to challenge or assert the Plaintiff’s common interest. Therefore, the Defendants do not constitute interested parties subject to the participation in the instant judgment, on the grounds that there was no ground to challenge or assert the Plaintiff’s common interest.

C. The remaining Defendants

(1) The defendants' refund money of this case is the part reduced according to the correction disposition by the director of the Namgu Tax Office.

The tax is refunded, and the Defendants have the title to hold it.

(2) The determination of the instant claim objection lawsuit is that the Plaintiff did not follow the notification procedure under the National Tax Collection Act and did not have the claim for return of excess refund to pregnant II, and this is not contrary to the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants had the right to hold the instant claim against the Defendants, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be rejected in accordance with the validity of the said notice of lawsuit.

(3) In accordance with the family affairs and the validity of the notice of lawsuit, the Defendants are required to return the instant refund money, and this is a matter arising from the fact that the director of the tax office in Daegu or the Defendants erroneously paid the national tax refund to Y or the Defendants, and the Defendants cannot be held liable to delay the refund money.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant AA’s defense of this safety

Defendant A asserted that the claim for the return of the Defendants’ refund amount of this case is related to the claim under public law and cannot be based on the civil procedure. Thus, the Plaintiff sought the return of the Defendants’ refund amount on the ground that the gift tax refund amount to be paid to Y was erroneously paid as the inheritance tax refund of the Defendants, who are other inheritors without any legal cause. The amount of national tax paid erroneously is already determined at the time of payment or collection due to the lack of legal cause from the beginning, and the amount of erroneous payment or refund amount, the existence and scope of which have already been determined, can be claimed as a civil lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da26432, Oct. 10, 197). Thus, even in a case where the State paid the amount of the gift tax determined by the State as the gift tax refund amount to the heir in a specific manner, the amount of the tax refund amount paid erroneously paid to us cannot be accepted from the beginning as a civil lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment.

B. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim and Defendants’ assertion of notice of lawsuit

소송고지제도는 소송의 결과에 대하여 이해관계를 가지는 제3자로 하여금 소송에 참가하여 그 이익을 옹호할 기회를 부여함과 아울러 고지자가 패소한 경우에는 형평의 견지에서 그 패소의 책임을 제3자에게 분담시키려는 제도로서， 피고지자는 후일 고지자와의 소송에서 전소확정판결에서의 결론의 기초가 된 사실상 ・ 법률상의 판단에 반하 는 것으로서 피고지자가 보조참가를 하여 상대방에 대하여 고지자와 공동이익으로 주장하거나 다툴 수 있었던 사항을 주장할 수 없게 된다(대법원 1986. 2. 25. 선고 85다 카2091판결， 대법원 1991. 6. 25. 선고 88다카6358 판결 등 참조). 이 사건에서 보건대， 앞서 본 인정사실과 갑 제1 내지 17호증， 을가 제1 내지 5호증 (각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들， 즉 ① 임II가 2004년경 원고를 상대로 남대구세무서장의 상속세부과 2차 경정처분에 따라 납입근거가 사라진 상속세 가산금 등 000원의 반환을 구하는 소송을 제기하여 이 사건 부당이득금 판결을 받아 강제집행에 착수하자， 원고는 위 판 결금 중 이 사건 초과환급금 000원(8차 경정처분으로 임II에게 환급된 이 사건 국세환급금 000원 중 피고들의 상속지분으로 계산한 금액) 상당액은 이 사건 피고들 환급금으로 지급되어야 할 것이 임II에게 잘못 환급되어 반환받아야 한 다는 이유로 이를 공제한 나머지 000원만 변제공탁하고 이 사건 청구이의소송 을 제기하게 된 점，② 이 사건 청구이의소송에서 임II가 이 사건 초과환급금 0000원도 임II에게 환급될 금원일 뿐 피고들에게 환급될 것이 아니라고 다투자， 원고는 2010. 2. 9.경 소송고지절차를 통하여 피고들에게 "원고가 임II에게 패소 할 경우 피고들로부터 이 사건 피고들 환급금을 환수할 수밖에 없다"는 취지를 고지하였으나， 피고들은 위 소송고지를 받고도 위 청구이의소송에 참가하지 아니한 점，③ 이 사건 청구이의소송의 제1심은 "원고가 국세정수법상의 고지절차를 밟지 않아 아직 임 II에 대한 이 사건 초과환급금의 반환채권이 발생하지 않았으므로 원고의 주장은 이유 없다"고 판단하였으나， 제2심은 "상속세부과 8차 경정처분에 따라 감액된 환급금은 종전에 임II가 납부한 후 위 감액 부분에 충당된 증여세 환급금을 임II에게 반환 하는 방식으로 환급되어야 할 것이어서 원고가 임II에게 반환한 이 사건 국세환급금 000원 전부는 전액 정당하게 반환된 것이고， 원고가 위 반환금 중 임II의 상속지분을 초과한 부분에 관한 반환채권(이 사건 초과환급금 000원)이 있음을 이유로 이 사건 부당이득금 판결금에서 이를 공제한 것은 위법하므로 원고의 주장은 이유 없다"고 판단하였고， 대법원이 제2심의 판단을 받아들임으로써 이 사건 청구이의 소송이 종결된 점，④ 이 사건 피고들 환급금은 당초 임II가 증여세로 납부하였다가 환급받을 금원의 일부인데， 상속세 연대납세의무 규정에 따라 피고들의 미납 상속세에 충당되었다가 남대구세무서의 업무 착오로 임II에 대한 이 사건 초과환급금과 피고들에 대한 이 사건 피고들 환급금으로 중복 환급이 이루어진 것으로 보이는 점 등에서 나타나는 종전 소송의 쟁점이나 소송고지 경위 및 법원의 판단 내용에 비추어， 피고들의 주장 중 "이 사건 피고들 환급금은 임II가 아니라 피고들에게 환급될 상속세 환급금으로 피고들이 보유할 권원이 있다"는 취지의 주장은， 전소확정판결의 결론의 기초가 된 위 제2심의 판단요지에 반하는 것으로서 피고들이 이 사건 청구이의소송에 보 조참가를 하여 임II에 대하여 원고와 공동이익으로 주장할 수 있었던 사항에 해당하여 허용될 수 없으므로，이 부분에 관한 피고들의 주장(피고 임AA의 ②，③ 주장， 나머지 피고들의 ①， ② 주장)은 모두 받아들일 수 없다(가사 피고들의 주장처럼 이 사건 청구이의소송의 판결의 참가적 효력이 피고들에게 미치지 않는다고 하더라도，위 기초 사실에서 나타난 인정사실과 관련 법리에 의하면，위 8차 경정처분에 의하여 되살아나 는 권리는 피고들 및 임II의 상속세 환급금 청구권이 아니라 당초의 임II의 증여세 환급금 청구권이므로， 원고가 2009. 3. 11. 상속세 환급금 명목으로 피고들에게 환급한 피고들 환급금은 결국 법률상 원인 없이 업무 착오에 의하여 지급된 금원에 해당 하여， 피고들은 원고에게 위 피고들 환급금을 반환할 의무가 있다). 따라서 피고들이 지급받은 이 사건 피고들 환급금은 남대구세무서의 임II에 대한 증여세 환급 절차에서 한 업무 착오로 인하여 법률상의 원인 없이 잘못 지급된 금원에 불과하므로，피고들은 부당이득의 반환으로서 원고에게 이를 지급할 의무가 있다. 다만， 원고는 피고들이 이 사건 피고들 환급금을 수령한 2009. 3. 11.부터 다 반환할 때까지의 지연손해금을 구하고 있으나， 부당이득반환의무는 이행기한의 정함이 없는 채무로 그 채무자는 이행청구를 받은 때에 비로소 지체책임을 지는 것인데(대법원 2010. 1. 28. 선고 2009다24187， 24194 판결 등 참조)， 원고가 부당이득금의 반환을 구 하는 내용이 포함된 이 사건 소장 부본의 송달일 전에 피고들에게 이 사건 피고들 환 급금의 반환을 청구하였음을 인정할 증거가 없으므로， 원고의 지연손해금에 관한 주장은 이 사건 소장 부본의 송달일 이후에 관한 부분만 이유 있다[원고의 지연손해금에 관한 주장을 피고가 악의의 수익자로서 반환하여야 할 이자에 관한 주장을 한 것으로 선해하여 보더라도， 부당이득반환의무자가 악의의 수익자라는 점에 대하여는 이를 주장하는 측에서 입증책임을 지는데(대법원 2010. 1. 28. 선고 2009다24187， 24194 판결 등 참조)， 위 인용증거들만으로는 피고들이 악의라는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다].

C. Determination as to Defendant CB, ECC, E, and ED’s claim for exemption from delay damages

The above Defendants, and due to the mistake of the director of the tax office in Daegu, argued that the Defendants cannot be liable for the damages for delay of the refund, and thus, unjust enrichment is generated when they gain profits from another person’s property without any legal ground and inflict losses on another person. When the due date of the duty to return arrives, they are liable for delay for the return without any relation to the above Defendants’ liability, and they cannot be exempted from the duty to pay damages for delay solely on the grounds as alleged by the above Defendants. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, as a result, the return of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, and Defendant AA, and YB, each of the above 00 won, each of the above 00 won, each of the 00 won, and Defendant AA, and PE are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as provided for in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Facilitation, etc. of Legal Proceedings, with respect to Defendant A, EA, on the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and EB, and E, from January 10, 2012 to October 10, 2012, each of the Defendants is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided for in each Civil Act and 20% per annum as provided for in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of reason. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendants ordering payment to the plaintiff in excess of the above scope of recognition is unfair and low, and the defendant's appeal is partially accepted, and it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the remaining appeal of the defendants is dismissed for lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.