Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

Reasons

In light of the fact that the value-added tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the amount of value-added tax reduced pursuant to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act belongs to a general taxi transport business entity, who is a business entity, and that where a general taxi transport business entity has not paid the reduced amount of value-added tax lawfully, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the general taxi transport business entity shall additionally collect the unpaid amount of tax reduced and the amount equivalent to the interest accrued therefrom, even though Article 106-7(2) of the same Act provides that “general taxi transport business entity shall pay the reduced amount in cash to the general taxi transport business entity,” the Plaintiff and the designated parties (part of the retirement by the Plaintiff and the designated parties (part of the retirement by the Plaintiff and the designated parties) who are the general taxi transport business entity belonging to the Defendant (one of November 16, 2015), are entitled to receive the reduced amount of value-added tax reduction from the Defendant, who is a general taxi transport business entity. It cannot be said that the Plaintiff and the designated parties have