2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition imposing additional tax listed in the separate sheet No. 1 that the Defendants issued against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

shall be subject to the judgment.

A. The Plaintiffs are non-profit corporations established under the 000 Cooperatives Act, district cooperatives, and are management agencies of duty-free petroleum under Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) and have purchased oil from static oil without tax exemption, such as the right forest, and supplied fishermen within the control area through 000 cooperatives oil stations and supply agency oil with tax exemption.

B. From September 16, 2013 to December 4, 2013, the Defendants conducted an inspection of the supply and management of duty-free petroleum for fishing to the fishermen (from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 of the target year) in accordance with a plan to process data on suspicion of illegal distribution of duty-free petroleum for fishing, the Defendants confirmed that the Plaintiffs issued a purchase card or order for delivery to the fishermen (hereinafter referred to as “tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc.”) to (i) depart from Korea or (ii) die; (iii) closed vessels; (iv) issued the purchase card, etc. of duty-free petroleum to the fishermen (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for disposal”) and the details are as follows.

C. Accordingly, the Defendants imposed additional taxes on the Plaintiffs, each of the listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the attached Table No. 20% of the amount of traffic, energy and environment tax, education tax, and value-added tax reduced or exempted by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 106-2(11)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and tried to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the claims on July 29, 2014.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 4, 12, 13, 14, Eul's 7, 9 through 16, and 18 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Article 106-2 Paragraph (11) Item 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act states that the issue of tax-free petroleum under Article 106-2 Paragraph (11) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation refers to the case where the taxpayer did not have been issued with the absence of the management failure to properly verify relevant documentary evidence when issuing the tax-free petroleum purchase card to the fishermen. If the tax-free petroleum supplied was actually used for the fishery by the relevant fishermen, even if some errors or errors were found in the process of issuing the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc., if the tax-free petroleum was actually used for the fishery by the relevant fishermen, it shall not be subject to additional tax even if there were errors or errors in the process of issuing the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc., and further if the plaintiffs who are the management agency confirmed and issued the fishery management through documentary evidence submitted by the fishermen, even if the documentary evidence was included in the documentary evidence submitted by the fishermen, it may be suspected that the documentary evidence was issued falsely or regardless of the actual operation.

2) However, considering the following circumstances, in the case of the plaintiffs, it is deemed that the fishermen confirmed the management of the fishery and issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. through documentary evidence submitted by them, and the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have a "management poor" under Article 106-2 subparagraph 11 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, each of the dispositions in this case is unlawful

A) (1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiffs confirmed the power of attorney of the fishermen, identity cards of the mandatory fishermen, and documents verifying the management of fisheries pursuant to Article 23(3) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, and issued an order of delivery along with such documents. Tax-free petroleum released therefrom is used for fishing, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have “the Plaintiffs’ failure to manage” even if the Plaintiffs issued the order of delivery under the name of the fishermen, not in the name of the mandatory fishermen, but in the name of the fishermen themselves.

B) (2) According to Article 106-2(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, considering the following factors: (a) when a farmer died, his/her heir, such as his/her family members, etc.; (b) when the farmer’s family members, etc. continue to operate his/her fishing without reporting, the Plaintiffs are not aware of the death of the fisherman; (c) when the proxy of the decedent’s name, the certificate of perjury, and the certificate of entry into and departure from the vessel have been submitted, the Plaintiffs are bound to issue the order of release with trust and issuance of the relevant certificate, unless the power of attorney is forged or it is readily possible to know the death of the farmer; and (d) duty-free petroleum released therefrom is actually used for fishing.

C) (3) The reason for disposal (waste-related vessel) is that a passenger used a closed vessel and sought a substitute vessel to obtain a fishery license for the substitute vessel; thus, there is considerable time for the passenger to obtain a fishery license for the substitute vessel. As such, there is a case of being supplied with duty-free oil in the name of the closed vessel while operating the substitute vessel; after the fishermen received a delivery order, the passenger’s supply of oil in the oil station, etc.; thus, it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to verify the same whether the vessel is actually supplied with duty-free oil; the Plaintiffs issued a delivery order, along with evidentiary documents verifying fishery management; and the Plaintiffs issued the delivery order, after considering the fact that the duty-free oil released therefrom was actually used for fisheries.

D) (4) According to Article 106-2(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, fishermen are obliged to report on the ground of such reasons as the mooring. Thus, barring such a report, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have a 'management failure' of the Plaintiffs in relation to the mooring, taking into account the following: (a) it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to find out whether the relevant vessel is a mooring; (b) it is unlikely to make a daily inquiry as to whether the vessel is mooring because it is anticipated that the Plaintiffs were negligent in the management of the Ship Safety Technology Authority, which is the management authority of the mooring; (c) the Plaintiffs confirmed evidentiary documents verifying the management of the vessel; and (d) issued the delivery order along with the documents

E) (5) Article 106-2(1)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not exclude the cases of fishing operations in violation of the Fishing Vessels Act or the Ship Safety Act, and when fishermen do not report the lapse of the period of the vessel inspection and the reason for the inspection pursuant to Article 106-2(3) of the same Act, the Plaintiffs cannot understand such reason. The Plaintiffs issued a delivery order, along with evidentiary documents verifying the management of the fishing industry, issued the delivery order, and the duty-free oil released therefrom was actually used for the fishing industry. In light of the above, the Plaintiffs’ failure to manage the vessel in relation to the attempted inspection cannot be recognized.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) 구 조세특례제한법 제106조의2는 대통령령이 정하는 어민 등이 어업 등에 사용하기 위한 석유류에 대해 교통��에너지��환경세, 교육세, 부가가치세 등의 세금을 감면하도록 규정하고 있는바, 이러한 면세유 제도의 입법취지는 선박 등에 사용할 목적으로 공급되는 석유류에 대해서 부가가치세 등을 감면함으로써 관련 비용을 절감시켜 어민 등의 소득증대를 지원하는 한편, 선박 등의 보급을 촉진하여 어업생산성을 제고함과 동시에 어촌 노동력 부족현상에 대비하기 위한 것이라고 할 수 있다(헌법재판소 2010. 12. 28. 선고 2009헌바171 전원재판부 참조).

Article 106-2 (11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the head of the competent tax office shall collect an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount of value-added tax, individual consumption tax, traffic, energy and environment tax, education tax, and automobile tax for the relevant petroleum products as additional tax on the case where the association, which is the agency responsible for the control of tax-free petroleum, issues the tax-free petroleum purchase card to farmers, fishermen, etc. or issues the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. to persons other than farmers, fishermen, etc. due to poor management, such as failure to verify relevant evidentiary documents, etc." (Article 2).

In order to fundamentally prevent illegal distribution of goods with high possibility of illegal distribution, it is highly necessary to control and supervise the supply of oil to persons other than fishermen, etc. prior to the supply of tax-free oil. Therefore, the above sanctions are intended to strengthen the legal system on the cooperative for the thorough management and supervision of the issuance of the tax-free oil purchase card, etc., which serves as the basis of the operation of the tax-free oil system, and it is reasonable to view that the pertinent tax-free oil was actually used in fishery and that it was intended to impose penalty tax on the wrong issuance of the tax-free oil purchase card, etc., due to poor management

Meanwhile, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed pursuant to the individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intentional intent or negligence is not considered. On the other hand, such a sanction cannot be imposed where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of his/her obligations, such as where there is a circumstance that the taxpayer could reasonably present his/her duties, or where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of his/her obligations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu15939, Nov. 23, 1993).

2) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs, as the management agency of tax-free petroleum, issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. by ascertaining only the documents submitted without properly verifying or inquiring about the facts despite considerable grounds for sufficiently doubting whether they were dead or not, and whether they were actually unable to work, and issuing the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. by verifying only the documents submitted without properly verifying or inquiring about the facts. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is any justifiable reason otherwise to believe that the Plaintiffs were not responsible for failing to perform their duties. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. by mistake due to the "remanagement failure under Article 106-2 (11) 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act" caused by the "management failure under Article 106-2 (11) 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act". The Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

A) According to Articles 21(1) and 35(1) and (2) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, the Plaintiffs’ internal business guidelines, the issuance of tax-free petroleum purchase cards, etc. requires thorough management as to whether the issuing party is himself/herself, etc. In order to prevent unlawful leakage of duty-free petroleum. Article 35(6) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business provides that fishermen shall write their signature on the delivery order and submit it to the oil station. In light of the fact that the oil supplier’s identity and the delegated person’s identity are confirmed in the oil station based on the delivery order, it is necessary to strictly control the issuance of the delivery order. However, the Plaintiffs’ issuance of the delivery order should be clearly indicated in the delegation relationship with the delegated person’s name, but it appears that the issuance of the delivery order is difficult for the Defendant to obtain the issuance of the delivery order under the name of the delegated person’s name during the period of 20 years prior to the issuance of the delivery order. Article 35(2) of the Guidelines for Petroleum Products Supply Business No. 3031, the Defendant’s.

B) In issuing a tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. pursuant to Articles 21(1) and 35(1) and (2) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, the issue of whether the issuing party is the principal in order to prevent unlawful leakage of tax-free petroleum shall be thoroughly managed. In the case of issuing an agent, not issuing a tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. to the principal, there is a need to more closely examine and manage the issue of the agent. Whether a farmer dies can be easily confirmed by being submitted a family relation certificate, etc. submitted pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business. Furthermore, in order to efficiently conduct tax-free petroleum management pursuant to Article 106-2(20) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiffs are also authorized to request the administrative agency, etc. to verify the death and farming materials, etc.

C) The Plaintiffs supplied fishermen within the control area with duty-free oil through a supply agency station that entered into a contract on behalf of their gas stations or a supply agency. Article 33 subparag. 2 of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business provides that when an employee of the oil station supplies oil, he/she shall confirm whether the name of the vessel specified in the order of release is identical to that of the oil being actually recovered. If the Plaintiffs properly managed and supervised the oil station or the supply agency, the identity of the vessel in the order of delivery, which is the closed vessel, could have been easily identified. According to Article 13 of the Fishing Vessels Act, the vessel cannot be used as a fishing vessel before the registered substitute vessel is registered in accordance with the Fishing Vessels Act, and if the vessel fails to operate, the vessel cannot be supplied with duty-free oil can not be used as a fishing vessel. Considering the fact that Article 33 subparag. 2 of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs issued the tax-free oil card based on formal evidentiary documents without properly verifying whether the vessel is closed.

D) According to Article 21(1) of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, when issuing an oil card, a copy of the ship inspection certificate, etc. shall be collected and kept, and the thorough verification of the expiration of the period of validity shall be made. According to Article 22(5)1 of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business, the term of validity of the oil card shall be the expiration date which comes earlier between the date of issuance of the license certificate and the date of expiration of the period of validity on the ship inspection certificate. Thus, the verification of the effective ship inspection certificate in relation to oil supply is basically a matter to be conducted. Article 52(2)5 of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business shall suspend the supply of duty-free petroleum during the pertinent period for the fishing vessel under the boundary of an administrative agency. In light of the fact that whether the ship inspection certificate is returned can be confirmed relatively easily by regularly questioning and checking the relevant administrative agencies pursuant to Article 106-2(20) of the former Restriction on Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiffs are not properly verified whether the fishing vessel is still in force.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the grounds for disposition are recognized.

E) According to Article 21(1) of the Oil Supply Business Guidelines, when issuing an oil card, a copy of the ship inspection certificate, etc. shall be collected and stored, and shall be thoroughly verified whether the effective period expires. According to Article 35(1)3, an oil card must be verified when issuing an oil certificate. Article 22(5)1 of the Oil Supply Business Guidelines provides that the effective period of an oil card for a ship shall be the effective period from the date of issuance to the date of issuance to the date of issuance, and the effective period of a ship inspection certificate on the ship inspection certificate (the last day of the inspection period subject to an interim inspection in the case of a ship which has failed to undergo an interim inspection). Article 17(1) of the Ship Safety Act provides that a ship shall not be used for navigation of a ship, the validity of which is suspended, such as a ship inspection certificate or a ship inspection certificate without a ship inspection certificate, and whether a ship inspection certificate has been received shall be recognized relatively easily by confirming the effective period of a ship inspection certificate already submitted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that they are without merit.

shall be determined as above.