교통,에너지,환경세 등 부과처분 취소
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part requesting the revocation of traffic, energy and environment tax and education tax imposition in January 2014 shall be dismissed.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the Seogu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court, did not register with the competent authority as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, from November 2012 to April 15, 2014, operated petroleum retail business by selling the total amount of KRW 543,943,670, totaling 412,846 liters, light oil and fake petroleum products in the factory site B located in Daegu Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant business site”) from November 2012 to April 15, 2014. The summary order of this case became final and conclusive around that time and place. A total amount of KRW 188,822,249,245,010, total amount of KRW 15 million,000,000 (hereinafter “instant summary order”).
B. On January 8, 2016, the director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the taxation data on the instant summary order, and accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 102,03,060 in total of KRW 102,03,060 in education tax (including additional tax) with respect to the traffic tax on fake petroleum products manufactured and sold between February 2, 2012 and April 2014 (hereinafter “traffic tax”) and the traffic, energy and environment tax (including additional tax) with respect to KRW 18,822 liter of fake petroleum products manufactured and sold between April 2012 and April 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition of imposition”). (c)
In January 2014 and April 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on March 11, 2016, with the exception of the imposition of each traffic tax and education tax. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on May 23, 2016.
The Defendant’s confirmation of the Plaintiff’s transaction statement during the instant lawsuit is that on February 14, 2017, on the ground that the taxable period of the initial imposition was erroneously specified as a result of verifying the Plaintiff’s transaction statement during the instant lawsuit, the sales volume of fake petroleum products in the initial imposition disposition of fake petroleum products sold between November 201 and April 2014 by the Plaintiff, as indicated in the “Corrective Notice” column in attached Table 2.