A. From July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff operated a gas station with the trade name called “D” (hereinafter “D” in this case) in C, the Plaintiff sold tax exemption to farmers qualified under the former Special Cases Concerning the Application of Value-Added Tax Rates and Tax Exemptions for the Agricultural, Livestock, Forestry, and Fishing Equipment and Petroleum Products by obtaining designation from the Defendant as a dealer of duty-free petroleum under Article 106-2(7) of the Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30398, Feb. 11, 2020; hereinafter “former Special Provisions”).

B. From August 14, 2019 to August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff sold tax-free petroleum purchase cards to E (hereinafter “instant farmers”) who are farmers (hereinafter “relevant farmers”) on five occasions, and paid it by using a tax-free petroleum purchase card, but did not actually supply, and stored it in the instant gas station.

(c)

On September 2, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the refund and deduction of taxes, such as value-added taxes, education taxes, traffic, environment, and energy taxes, with respect to the instant duty-free oil kept by the Plaintiff, and received the refund and deduction.

(d)

On March 16, 2020, the salary office of the National Agricultural Products Quality Institute Support for the North Korean Agricultural Products Quality Institute notified the head of the permanent tax office and the defendant of the fact that the violation of the Special Act on Taxation Restriction is doubtful as a result of the follow-up management of tax exemption to the plaintiff. On May 1, 2020, the head of the permanent tax office notified the plaintiff of the additional collection of 420,686 won in total.

E. Accordingly, on June 26, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the date of the disposition to the Plaintiff as of July 1, 2020, revoked the designation of an oil distributor exempt from agriculture to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 106-2(13) of the Act on Special Taxation Restriction (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant did not have any dispute over the grounds of recognition, the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as of July 1, 2020.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1).