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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax for the second period of February 1, 2015 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2017

66,244,150 won shall be revoked.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of judgment on the argument of the court as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A corrected or added portion;

(a) All of the “Act No. 12835, Dec. 23, 2014” and “Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014,” which are in parallel No. 8 and No. 1506, Dec. 15, 2015, shall be amended to “Act No. 13506, Dec. 15, 2015”.

(b)The following shall be added among the 13 pages 20 and 21 of the decision of the first instance:

(4) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

The plaintiff asserts that Article 106-7 (5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall confirm whether to pay the amount of reduced tax to a general taxi transport business entity and notify the head of the competent tax office of the result thereof within three months from the end of the payment period (hereinafter referred to as "additional notification"). In such cases, the plaintiff did not have been notified that it was subject to such unpaid notification," and that the disposition of this case is unlawful to collect the amount of reduced tax amount and additional tax equivalent to 40/100 of the amount of the unpaid tax from the plaintiff on the premise that the notice of tax payment was made.

However, in full view of the contents of the relevant laws and regulations and the aforementioned facts and quoted evidences, the "base date for unpaid reduction or exemption and 40% additional taxes" under Article 106-7 (6) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not only the "date of unpaid notification to the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport," but also the "date of unpaid notification to the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport," and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

① Article 106-7 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act separates “Unpaid notification to the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport” and “paid notification to a general taxi transport business entity” (Paragraph 5), and separates the amount to be collected from a general taxi transport business entity and the amount to be deducted from the amount to be paid by the date of notification of such unpaid amount (Paragraph 6(1)1) and the case to be paid (Paragraph 6(2)2). Relevant statutes stipulate the foregoing basic date for collection as “the date of notification of unpaid amount to the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport” and do not designate as “the date of notification of unpaid amount to a general taxi transport business entity.”

(2) The period of payment of the reduced amount of tax for drivers of general taxi transport business entities is within one month from the end of the deadline for payment of the reduced amount of tax (Article 106-7 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act). The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall confirm whether to pay the reduced amount of tax and notify the head of the competent tax office of the result within three months from the end of the deadline for payment (in such cases, the notification of payment) and notify the general taxi transport business entities that they were subject to the notification of payment (Article 106-7 (5)), and the head of the competent tax office in receipt of the notification of payment under paragraph (5) of the same Article shall determine the amount of additional collection by distinguishing whether the unpaid amount of tax has been paid until the date of notification of payment (Article 106-6). As such, the relevant statutes stipulate that the amount of tax to be collected differently based on the payment period of the reduced amount of tax for general taxi transport business entities, the period for notification of payment to the head of the competent tax office and the competent tax office.

(3) The head of the National Tax Service or the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over a general taxi transport business entity who has been notified of the payment of the reduced amount of tax due to the unpaid amount of tax shall not be the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to notify the general taxi transport business entity of the amount to be unpaid. Thus, the defects in the notification of the amount to be unpaid with authority and responsibility

④ In this case, the Plaintiff, a general taxi transport business entity, submitted a “plan for the payment of the amount of the value-added tax reduced” to the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor on March 22, 2016, which was delegated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on March 17, 2016, in response to the “request for the cooperation of the amount of the value-added tax reduced” (administrative guidance) and did not comply with the confirmation that the Plaintiff would pay all the amount of the tax reduced until April 30, 2016.

In addition, even after the closure of business, the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor did not serve the notice of unpaid payment on May 3, 2016 on the grounds that the service address was not changed, and thus, the notice of unpaid payment to the head of the competent tax office and the notice of unpaid payment to the general taxi transport business entity are classified as follows: (a) the administrative guidance of the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor and the submission of the payment plan to the Plaintiff can be seen as having been actually made to the Plaintiff; (b) the notice of unpaid payment was not served to the Plaintiff as the submission of the administrative guidance of the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor and the submission of the payment plan to the Plaintiff; and (c) the service defect of the notice of unpaid payment claimed by the Plaintiff was not attributable to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.