Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 59

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

On August 3, 2010, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion of 2006, value-added tax of 000 won for the first term portion of 2007, value-added tax of 2007, value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion of 2008, value-added tax of 000 for the second term portion of 2008, value-added tax of 000 for the second term portion of 2009, value-added tax of 00 for the first term portion of 209, and value-added tax of 00 for the second term portion of 209.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following supplementary judgments after the second instance judgment No. 12, 9 of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary matters;

The defendant asserts that the above Seoul High Court's decision and the above Supreme Court's decision are not conflicting opinions, but just correct interpretation by the Supreme Court in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law, and that this does not constitute a justifiable ground which does not err in the plaintiff's breach of duty, since it constitutes a mere lot of land and mistake in law.

In light of the following circumstances, there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff cannot be found to have neglected his/her duty in light of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, which are revealed prior to the above fact-finding.

① The above Seoul High Court's decision and its first instance judgment are based on the Supreme Court's decision that " even if an entrepreneur fails to submit a document attached to the zero-rate tax base at the time of filing a preliminary or final return of value-added tax, when the pertinent tax base is confirmed to be subject to zero-rate tax (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8224 Decided February 18, 2005), the above Supreme Court's decision has not been abolished.

② The Supreme Court Decision 2007Du22863 Decided April 9, 2009 ruled that a tax disposition denying the application of zero-rate tax on the transaction under a purchase authorization issued after the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods belongs was lawful. However, this case was normally exported in that it was a decision against the prohibited enterpriser who evaded the value-added tax by pretending the export by using a false or defective purchase authorization, but it was not the case in which the purchase authorization was not issued only at the time or the case in which the tax invoice was issued immediately without the issuance of the general tax invoice was different.

③ Ultimately, prior to the Supreme Court Decision 201Du2774 Decided May 26, 201, the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax was accepted for the period from February 2006 to February 2009 on the Plaintiff’s return of zero-rate tax for the following month since the end of the taxable period, or the Plaintiff’s taxpayer was issued a purchase authorization within 20 days after the end of the taxable period, but the 10th day of the month following the month when the goods were supplied. However, whether the zero-rate tax is applied immediately to the case for which the zero-rate tax was immediately issued without a general tax invoice, may be deemed to have been a substitute for the opinion under the interpretation of the tax law, beyond the scope of simple land or misunderstanding. Defendant Cho Jong-soo, a tax authority, did not properly determine whether the Plaintiff’s transaction of automobile parts with EX and OO was subject to zero-rate tax rate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s return of zero-rate tax for the following month from 2006 to 2009.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.