Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In other words, between April 1, 1971 and April 30, 1972, the Plaintiff paid the customs duties on the total amount of KRW 8,482,575, which was taken out from the Plaintiff’s direct store from the manufacturing place to April 30, 1972. The above customs duties on the shipment was actually sold at KRW 18,198,584 during the above period. The price difference was KRW 9,716,009 ( KRW 18,199,584-8,482,575), and the customs duties on the shipment was imposed on KRW 1,943,202 under Article 2(1)7 and Article 5(1)5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s customs duties on the shipment was imposed on KRW 201,107,197,297,2714.27.27.14.27.27.27.

However, the plaintiff's attorney, first, is that the taxable goods taken out are the price at the time of their taking out from the manufacturing place or the quantity thereof. However, even if the manufacturing place and the sales place are specially related to Article 5 (1) 7 of the Goods Tax Act, the sales price at the sales place (the direct sales place in case of a recommendation) shall not be the tax base, and second, the goods returned to the plaintiff's direct sales place are not the "goods returned to the manufacturing place" under Article 7 of the Goods Tax Act, and therefore, it is not necessary to file the return return, and because the return return cannot be levied double on them, the defendant's disposition at issue is illegal.

2. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s sales price at the main sales outlet is illegal.

Article 2(1)1 and (3) of the Goods Tax Act provides that the price or quantity at the time of carrying out or selling goods at a manufactory shall be the tax base of the relevant goods tax, and the price at the time of carrying out or selling goods shall be calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 5(1)5 (j) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act, the calculation of the price under Article 2(1) of the Act shall be based on the amount equivalent to the selling price at the relevant outlet in cases where the goods are carried out at a price which has no special relation with the manufacturing place or is less than the usual price in cases where the goods are carried out by the manufacturer at a price which is lower than the usual price, and Article 2(7) of the same Act provides that the scope of the place of special relation shall be determined by the manufacturer in addition to the particular sales outlet in order to sell the goods directly.

Therefore, in full view of the above provisions of the Customs Duties Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the tax base for the goods taken out of a factory is the price or quantity at the time of taking out. However, even if there is no price or the price of taking out is below the ordinary price at the time of taking out because of the special relation between the manufacturing place and the sales place, the sales price at the sales place is not the ordinary price at the time of taking out, and if it is below the ordinary price at the time of taking out, the exception of the principle of taxation on taking out taxable goods is recognized, so it is interpreted that the provision of Article 5 (1) 5 (j) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties of the Goods Act was prepared in order to prevent the avoidance of tax burden using the above taxation principle, so even if the manufacturing place and the sales place are specially related to the above provisions under Article 2 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties of the Goods Tax Act (the principle that the quantity of the goods taken out is the tax base for the goods taken out at the sales place), the fact that the goods are taken out from the general sale price at the manufacturing place is not related to the sales place.

In light of this, since the above 10 to 25, No. 10, No. 25, No. 10 and No. 2, and the testimony of Kim Young-young, the plaintiff had 11 agents in Seoul, not only 180 but also 4 of the plaintiff's unique business place. Unlike the plaintiff's above direct sales place, the above agencies were operated separately by the contract for the establishment of an agency, and the plaintiff paid 8,482,575 won to the above direct sales place and the equivalent price of the goods which the plaintiff carried out to 200, no more than the above 70, No. 1970, No. 1964, No. 1967, Dec. 1, 197, the price of the goods which the plaintiff carried out to 30,000, no more than the above 197, the price of the goods which the plaintiff carried out to 30,000,000 won for the above direct sales place.

3. Next, the Plaintiff’s assertion that imposing a tax on the Defendant’s failure to report the return of a direct sales outlet is illegal is deemed unlawful.

According to Article 7 (1) 1 of the Goods Tax Act, where the goods which were taken out from a manufacturing place are returned to the same manufacturing place, the goods tax shall not be collected from the manufacturing place under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act provides that a person who intends to be subject to Article 7 (1) of the Act shall submit to the head of the competent tax office a written application for non-taxation as provided by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy along with documents proving the fact that the goods

Therefore, the purport of the above provision is that the goods taken out from the manufacturing place are subject to taxation based on the price and quantity at the time of the shipment, even if they were returned to the manufacturing place after they were returned because they were once returned to the manufacturing place due to damage or any other reason, and thus, it would be subject to taxation again pursuant to the principle of taxation on the shipment of goods. Thus, if the goods were subject to taxation due to the procedures prescribed in the Enforcement Decree, if they were returned to the manufacturing place, there is no need to file a return return unless they were returned to the manufacturing place, and it is interpreted that the goods cannot be subject to taxation again because they were returned to the manufacturing place without filing a return on their return. In full view of the above provision, the Plaintiff calculated the above direct sale of goods from April 1, 1971 to April 30, 1972, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to taxation again because they were sold to the manufacturing place without filing a return on their return. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to taxation again because it was the total amount of the goods sold to the above goods from the manufacturing place.

4. If the Defendant’s instant taxation disposition is all unlawful, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the said disposition is justifiable and accepted, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party, and are so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong-hun (Presiding Judge)