Opera et Dies

A tax filing and Unjust Enrichment lawsuit

Supreme Court Decision 98Da47184 delivered on February 25, 2000

1. Summing-up

ⓐ The plaintiff(the Korea Broadcasting System) filed the value-added tax amount by deducting the input tax amount for the commercial broadcasting by calculating the proportionate ratio of the revenue from the advertising fees to the aggregate revenue (i.e., the aggregate sum of the revenue from advertising fees and receiving fees, etc.), without dividing and confirming the portion associated with the advertising business.

ⓑ The plaintiff paid the value-added tax examined in this case without any reservation until it was indicated during the National Assembly's annual inspection for the year 1993 that the payment of the corporate tax was improper which led to the filing of this suit.

2. Judgment of Supreme Court

ⓐ In the type of taxes paid by reporting and filing by the taxpayer such as the value-added tax, the tax obligation is formatively confirmed by the act of the taxpayer reporting and filing its own tax base and the tax amount, and the payment of the tax amount is deemed to be a performance of the tax obligation formatively confirmed by such reporting.

ⓑ The national or municipal governments retain the tax amount paid based on the tax claim confirmed by the above procedure.

ⓒ Therefore, unless the tax filing of the taxpayer is null and void due to a material and clear defect, it cannot be forthwith deemed as unjust enrichment.

ⓓ In considering whether a tax filing is null and void due to a material and clear defect, a reasonable judgment must be made upon teleological review of the purpose, significance and function of the regulation under which the tax filing has been made and the available remedies for the defective tax filing as well as a case-by-case consideration of the circumstances leading to the tax filing.

ⓔ The plaintiff did not distinguish the profit-making business and other businesses in its accounting.

ⓕ The plaintiff's filing of the value-added tax amount is illegal.

ⓖ However, it is an open question of the construction of law whether the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the former Enforcement Decree to the Value-Added Tax Act can be applied by analogy to the case where the taxable and non-taxable businesses are concurrently conducted.

ⓗ It is difficult to regard the above defect as overtly clear.

ⓘ Therefore, the tax filing at issue in this case was not null and void per se.

A legitimate interest in an action for nullification

1. 무효확인청구는 과거의 법률관계의 확인청구에 불과하다.

A claim for nullification is no more than a claim for affirmation of a legal relationship in the past.

2. 그러나, 과거의 법률관계일지라도 현재의 권리 또는 법률상 지위에 영향을 미치고 있고 현재의 권리 또는 법률상 지위에 대한 위험이나 불안을 제거하기 위하여 그 법률관계에 관한 확인판결을 받는 것이 유효 적절한 수단이라고 인정된다면, 그 법률관계의 확인소송은 즉시확정의 이익이 있다.

Meanwhile, even as to a legal relationship that existed in the past, a legal interest in an action for immediate confirmation of such legal relationship should be considered to exist if it can be recognized that such relationship has an effect on the current rights or legal status, and that obtaining a judgment for confirmation of such legal relationship is deemed a valid and appropriate means of eliminating the risks or insecurities in relation to the current rights or legal status.

3. 이렇게 보는 것이 확인소송의 분쟁해결 기능과 분쟁예방 기능에도 합치하는 것이다.

This view would be consistent with the dispute resolution and prevention functions of an action for confirmation.