2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was examined by adding the evidence submitted in this court to the evidence submitted in the first instance court, the fact finding and decision in the first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion is added; (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for supplement, and thus, (c) the same shall be cited in accordance

2. Addition and supplement of judgments;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) The provision of this case limits the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. to those cases where the association, which is a management agency of tax-free petroleum, fails to verify relevant evidentiary documents, or issues them to those other than farmers, fishermen, etc. Accordingly, the provision of this case limits to those cases where the association mistakenly issues tax-free petroleum purchase cards, etc. or issues them to those other than farmers, fishermen, etc. Here, the term "cases where relevant evidentiary documents have not been verified" means all cases where there are simple errors or errors in the process of processing the affairs when issuing the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc., but it does not mean any cases where the association fails to confirm any defects in the management of the Gu's business under Article 15 of the former Special Cases Concerning the Application of Value-Added Tax Exemption and Tax Exemption (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24369, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Special Cases Concerning Tax Exemption") and Article 20 (2) of the former Guidelines for Tax Exemption and Management (amended by Ordinance No. 355 of Food, hereinafter referred to the former Rules).

2) Considering the legislative purport of the instant provision to prevent illegal distribution of duty-free oil, equity with the case where duty-free oil was illegally distributed, and special characteristics of the instant provision that imposes responsibility to manage private individuals, the determination of “management failure” should take into account not only whether relevant evidentiary documents have been verified, but also whether tax-free oil supplied to fishermen was used for fishing purposes. However, the Plaintiffs confirmed the management of fisheries through a copy of sales documents or a ship entry report, issued a shipment order, and confirmed that the tax-free oil supplied to fishermen was used for fishing purposes, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ failure to manage the supply of duty-free oil cannot be deemed to exist.

3) Furthermore, it is unreasonable for an association to expect to comply with all the provisions related to the procedures for the supply of duty-free petroleum in light of the circumstances such as the supply of duty-free petroleum is very complicated, and the association is performing various duties other than the duty related to the supply of duty-free petroleum. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiffs

B. Determination

1) In order to support the economic stability of agricultural and fishing villages, the special provisions governing exemption of traffic tax, etc. were newly established on December 29, 200 by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6297, Dec. 29, 200). The instant provisions were newly established on December 29, 200 by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6538, Dec. 29, 2001). According to delegation, Article 27 of the former Special Provisions stipulate the following matters: (a) the procedures for supplying and supplying duty-free petroleum are again delegated to the National Tax Service; (b) the procedures for supplying and managing duty-free petroleum and the procedures for filing an application for refund by the seller of duty-free petroleum; and (c) the procedures for issuing and managing duty-free petroleum are more detailed than those for supplying and selling duty-free petroleum; and (d) the former Special Rules on the Supply and Management of Tax-Free Petroleum, Etc. (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry and Fisheries, which is the Ministry of Oceans Affairs.

2) Also, as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the instant provision was intended to strengthen the sanctions against the association in order to thoroughly manage and supervise the issuance of the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc., which serves as the basis for operating the tax-free oil system, and eliminate the possession of the tax-free petroleum in advance. It is reasonable to view that the instant provision erroneously issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. due to the poor management regardless of whether the pertinent tax-free petroleum was actually used in fishery

3) Furthermore, the Plaintiffs, the management agency of tax-free petroleum, received the application for the issuance of the tax-free petroleum purchase card from the fishermen, and failed to obtain the relevant evidentiary documents under the relevant provisions as to whether the applicant is himself/herself or whether the licensee was in actual operation, and there was considerable reason to suspect whether the applicant was a fishermen who died through his/her verification, and whether the documents submitted without properly verifying or inquiring about the fact, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc., and otherwise, it is difficult to deem that there was any justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiffs were not attributable to their failure to perform their duties (the Plaintiffs issued the order for delivery to the fishermen residing overseas while verifying the delegation relationship, and submitted some delegations, identification cards, and family relation certificates to the fishermen residing overseas, which were submitted to the Plaintiffs 13-1, 2, and 3. Considering that there were no considerable number of delegations in the case of the Plaintiff Seocheon-gun Fisheries Cooperatives, the Plaintiffs’ issuance of the certificate of family relation or employment certificate, etc., and that the Plaintiffs 14 or 25-day evidence was omitted.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. due to the "management defect" under the provisions of this case. Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.