Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) From January 1, 1980 to June 30, 180 of the same year, a tax invoice for KRW 2,185,808,482 for the value of salary products supplied to an exporter for the first period of taxation (including the portion of customs duties) during the first period of 1,180, was issued, and a tax invoice was submitted along with the final return of zero-rate tax base and final return, and the exporter did not take such measures as to KRW 173,282,812 for the refund of customs duties that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff at the time of import of raw materials, after performing the export by the exporter.

(2) From July 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980, a tax invoice for KRW 2,847,138,927 supplied to an exporter for the second half-year period of taxation has been issued, and a tax invoice has been submitted along with the final tax base return and final tax return on such tax base, but failed to take such measures for KRW 330,195,228 of the customs duties refunded by the exporter after the exporter fulfilled its export, as well. Since it is clear that the customs refund paid by the Plaintiff from the exporter constitutes a part of the value of salary products exported from such exporter, the Defendant shall supply the goods to the exporter, and deliver the tax invoice for such goods to Busan and the head of such factory for the last completion of the product 】 20 years (including the portion of customs duties not included), 200,1381, 290, 29810, 2981, 298, 298, 298, 2010 (14, etc.) of the additional tax base return.

The plaintiff's legal representative argues that it is unlawful to issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act and submit a tax invoice along with the final return on zero tax base because a customs refund paid by an importer of raw materials to manufacture and process goods for export, not for consideration for the supply of goods, is the amount of money in the nature that the taxpayer receives because the customs duty was reduced or exempted due to the fulfillment of the conditions of cancellation, such as export from the date of import license, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the price of the goods is part of the value-added tax. Therefore, even though the defendant did not take such measures against the plaintiff, it is reasonable to impose the additional tax in this case on the ground that the price of the goods for the import of the goods is part of the price of the goods, which constitutes a local letter of credit, because the tax invoice and public charges are naturally included in the supply price of the goods, and thus, it is hard to conclude that the price of the goods that were paid to the plaintiff's legal representative for the import of the goods is the price of the goods that constitutes the plaintiff's local letter of credit, which constitutes an exporter's goods supply price of the goods.

Second, the plaintiff alleged that the act of causing the payment of the customs duties, etc. of this case and the act of receiving the refund were conducted at the principal office, and the duty of customs refund was fulfilled by issuing a tax invoice for the portion of the customs refund of this case in the name of the principal office, and submitting a tax invoice to the tax office having jurisdiction over the principal office along with the final tax rate and final tax return of value-added tax, and that the tax disposition of this case on the ground of the violation of such duty was unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the tax disposition of this case was unlawful. As to the refund of this case paid by the plaintiff from the principal office, the tax invoice was issued and delivered in the name of the principal office and the final tax rate and the final tax return of the tax base for the corresponding taxable period were submitted to the district tax office having jurisdiction over the principal office, as seen above, as long as it is evident that the customs refund paid by the plaintiff from the exporter constitutes part of the price for the goods supplied to the exporter, the plaintiff's plaintiff's duty of delivery, zero factory or forest.

Third, even if all of the obligations under the Value-Added Tax Act are to be imposed on the defendant, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the factory location, under Article 43 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the return of tax base does not affect the validity of the return even in cases where it is submitted to the head of the tax office, other than the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment. If the taxpayer becomes aware that it is not under his jurisdiction after the receipt of the report, he shall send the report without delay to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment and notify the taxpayer in writing stating that it is required to do so. Thus, the plaintiff has the duty to send it to the defendant who has jurisdiction over the Busan and the head office of the tax office to the head office of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment. Thus, the defendant's tax disposition in this case is an unlawful disposition against the tax credit, so it is obvious that the legitimate taxpayer has received the report by mistake other than the head of the tax office in this case.

Finally, the plaintiff's attorney does not entirely affect the added value of the goods, but does not collect the value-added tax by applying the zero-rate tax rate, but merely issues a tax invoice as a means to utilize transaction data and imposes an obligation to submit the final tax base for zero-rate tax and a tax invoice. The plaintiff does not neglect such obligation, but mistakenly reports it to the tax office having jurisdiction over the head office due to legal differences in interpretation and interpretation. Thus, the defendant's tax disposition in this case is unlawful disposition that is contrary to the general principles of tax law interpretation that the taxpayer's property right should not be unfairly infringed in light of the equity of taxation and the purpose of the pertinent provision in interpreting the tax law. However, even if the tax rate of value-added tax is paid to the taxpayer for the supply or sale of the exported goods, the taxpayer does not exempt the taxpayer from the liability to pay the value-added tax in itself, and therefore, the taxpayer has the duty to perform all obligations under the Value-Added Tax Act lawfully and faithfully. Thus, the plaintiff's legitimate taxpayer and Busan Forest Factory should submit the final tax return and its final tax return without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of the value-added tax against the plaintiff is legitimate, and this is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost.

March 15, 1984

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)