Each disposition of imposition of KRW 586,470,810 in total shall be revoked, respectively, of KRW 193,228,290 in education tax, KRW 446,273,710 in total, and driving tax.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

A. The Plaintiff sold petroleum products to the head of Ulsan District Tax Office after fixing the oil products with the purpose of manufacturing and selling petroleum products, etc., and the name was changed to traffic, energy, and environment tax (the name was changed to traffic, energy, and environment tax since January 1, 2007; hereinafter referred to as "traffic tax"), special consumption tax (the name was changed to the individual consumption tax from around January 1, 2008; hereinafter referred to as "special consumption tax"), education tax, and driving tax on the supply of petroleum products to the head of Ulsan District Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as "traffic tax, etc."), respectively, by reporting and paying the traffic tax, special consumption tax, education tax, and driving tax to the head of Ulsan District Office (hereinafter referred to as "traffic tax, etc."), respectively.

(b) Procedures for supplying duty-free petroleum and procedures for settlement;

1) The reduction or exemption system for petroleum products such as agriculture under Article 106-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and its relevant provisions is a tax-free system that sells oil from the beginning at an oil supplier to farmers, etc. not a zero-rate system, but supplies oil purchased at the dutiable value to farmers, etc. at the tax-free price, and then adjusts the amount of tax ex post according to the procedure set by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. The specific procedure

2) In the above procedure, the Plaintiff’s oil refining company, such as the Plaintiff, supplied the gas station as the dutiable value to the gas station through the agency or directly, and the gas station is supplied to farmers, etc. at the free price, and thereafter, oil stations, such as the Plaintiff, via the agency or directly settle accounts with the gas station as much as the amount of tax refunded by the tax authorities has been refunded ( Accordingly, the benefits accrued to the oil station, such as the Plaintiff, in

C. Distribution, etc. of certificates of supply of duty-free petroleum that have been modified and altered;

1) As to the amount of oil supplied by the Plaintiff to farmers, etc. as tax-free oil for agriculture, etc., through the aforementioned procedures, the Plaintiff also got traffic tax refunded to the gas stations to the extent that the Plaintiff supplied the oil to the gas stations via their agents or directly. As seen above, there were 10 gas stations, such as light energy gas stations.

2) However, through a special audit on the operational status of the Board of Audit and Inspection’s tax-free oil supply system from May 2007 to September 2007, 10 gas stations, etc. traded through the Plaintiff and its agencies, were found to have been settled by the Plaintiff by having the Plaintiff refund traffic taxes, etc., so that ten gas stations, etc. traded through the Plaintiff and its agencies from September 2003 to May 2007, such as light energy stations, supplied to farmers for agricultural purposes-free oil, so that the quantity of the gas stations supplied to others without being supplied for agricultural purposes-free oil (i.e., the pertinent quantity supplied by the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff’s agent, but the supply to others, did not cause farmers to bring them into the Republic of Korea) was lower than the actual quantity of the gas stations supplied to them for agricultural purposes-free oil.

D. Disposition by the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s appeal process

1) Accordingly, the Defendants stated that there was an error or omission in the details of the return on wrong tax-free oil for agriculture even though they did not meet tax exemption requirements. The portion of the special consumption tax before and after the amendment of Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8138 of Dec. 30, 2006) or Article 9(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1381 of Dec. 30, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Traffic Tax Act”) is based on Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Special Consumption Tax Act”) and Article 18(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1381 of Dec. 30, 207; hereinafter referred to as the “former Local Tax Act”) is based on Article 30(1) of the Education Tax Act (amended by Act No. 130. 137. .

2) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal made a decision to reduce or correct the portion of penalty tax for failure to file a return among each of the above dispositions as listed in the following table. Accordingly, the Defendants also made a disposition of reduction or correction as stated in the attached Table 2. The details of the disposition of imposition, such as traffic tax remaining after the reduction or correction, are as stated in the attached Table 2. The attached Table 2. The details of the disposition of imposition, such as the traffic tax remaining after the reduction or correction, are as stated in the attached Table 2. (hereinafter "the disposition of imposition, such as traffic tax remaining after the reduction

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 1, witness ParkA and 0B's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants made each of the instant dispositions in accordance with Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, which is unlawful for the following reasons.

A) In the case of this case, where the amount of traffic tax is collected due to the fraudulent refund of tax-free oil by forging a certificate of tax-free oil supply, Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act, Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, not Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 30, 2006) or Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007) (amended by Act No. 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 17(8) of the former Traffic Tax Act, Article 20(7) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act should apply mutatis mutandis to the case of this case, and the "employer" should be collected from the "employer for other than the original purpose."

B) In addition, the collection of traffic tax, etc. refunded from the Plaintiff who did not have any negligence or responsibility with respect to illegal distribution of tax-free petroleum for agriculture pursuant to Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act violates the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution.

2) The assertion by the director of the Ulsan District Tax Office

A) The person liable to pay traffic tax, etc. is a tax by filing a monthly tax return along with an application for refund, such as traffic tax, etc., and thereby determining the tax base and amount to be paid by the person liable to pay traffic tax in the month to be the amount obtained by subtracting the amount of refund, etc. from the calculated tax. Therefore, the tax authority does not need to separately determine whether the application for refund, such as a taxpayer’s traffic tax, satisfies the requirements for refund. If the error or omission was verified in the details of the tax base and amount of tax reported by the taxpayer, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was intentionally or negligently involved, the tax authority may rectify the amount of the erroneously reported tax amount under Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, such as the tax by filing a tax return and the amount of tax paid by the Plaintiff on the basis of the certificate of tax-free petroleum supplied by the Plaintiff. Thus, each of the instant dispositions are lawful since it ex post facto corrected and collected pursuant to the same Article.

B) The Plaintiff performed his/her duty to report the tax base, such as the traffic tax in this case, under his/her own responsibility, and corrected the relevant tax amount due to error in the details of the report, and thus, cannot be deemed as going against the principle of self-responsibility. In addition, the certificate of tax-free oil supply is a document that can be easily prepared if a person forges a direct speech of the head of the NACF, which is affixed to the lower end, without any separate misappropriation and alteration function. However, the certificate of tax-free oil supply is legitimate to impose traffic tax, special consumption tax, and education tax, including additional tax due to the negligence in payment, on the right upper end, to prevent the re-issuance, double issuance, etc. by allocating serial numbers, to have the recipient sign and seal in the issuance ledger, and to have the person in charge of issuance keep and manage the oil by checking the quantity of oil by kind, and thus, the Plaintiff

3) Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City’s assertion

In Article 196-16 of the former Local Tax Act, a taxpayer of driving tax stipulates as a taxpayer under Article 3 of the former Traffic Tax Act, and Article 29 of the same Act stipulates the time when the liability for payment of driving tax comes into existence, and Article 197-17 of the same Act stipulates the tax base of driving tax as traffic tax. Therefore, it is legitimate to impose driving tax according to the notice of traffic tax imposition by the head of Ulsan Tax Office.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3. The entry in the relevant statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i) Operational process of tax-free oil systems, such as agriculture;

For the purpose of supporting the economic stability of agricultural and fishing villages, the special provisions on the exemption of traffic tax, etc. on oil used for agriculture and fishery have been newly established and amended by Act No. 6297 of Dec. 29, 2000.

As seen earlier, the provisions of the Act on December 30, 2006 and the Act on June 1, 2007 (amended by Act No. 8493 of Jun. 1, 2007) have been enacted by delegation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Application of Value-Added Tax and Tax Exemption, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases Concerning Tax Exemption") for agricultural, livestock, livestock, strict and fishing machinery and petroleum products. Article 27 of the Special Cases Concerning Tax Exemption (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases Concerning Tax Exemption") again delegates the details such as the procedures for the supply of tax-free oil and the procedures for the issuance of the certificate of tax-free oil to the National Tax Service, and accordingly, the National Tax Service Regulations on the procedures for the provision of tax-free oil and the procedures

In addition, the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry designated as a supervisory agency of the agricultural tax-free petroleum system in accordance with the special provisions on the above-mentioned tax-free petroleum has been operating the agricultural tax-free petroleum system by setting up the internal rules of the "Rules for the Supply of Tax-Free Petroleum for Agricultural Machinery".

2) Illegal circulation of duty-free petroleum due to the above and alteration of a certificate of duty-free petroleum supply and audit results by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

As seen earlier, while the Board of Audit and Inspection operated the tax-free oil supply system for agriculture, etc. based on the relevant laws and regulations, it was revealed that the tax-free oil for agriculture, etc. was illegally distributed by means of forging and altering the certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum. In this regard, the letter of request for disposition of the audit results published by the Board of Audit and Inspection around May 2008 includes the measures following the illegal distribution of tax-free petroleum such as agriculture:

3) Progress of amendment, etc. of statutes

A) After the special audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection, Article 106-2 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "if petroleum products supplied to farmers, fishermen, etc. by a petroleum retailer prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as gas stations (hereafter referred to as "petroleum retailer" in this Article) are supplied with value-added tax, individual consumption tax, traffic, energy and environment tax, education tax, and driving tax, and are supplied to them under paragraph (1) 1, a petroleum retailer may be exempted from the tax amount to be refunded, paid, or collected by applying for tax exemption, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Paragraph (12) of the same Article provides that "the head of the competent tax office shall, where a person, other than farmers, fishermen, etc., has a tax-free petroleum purchase invoice, etc. issued under paragraph (4) or a petroleum retailer supplied with a tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. or a tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. by a petroleum retailer under Article 20-24 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act or Article 25-24 (1) of the Petroleum Substitute Fuel Act as amended by Presidential Decree No.

As a result, a petroleum retailer, such as gas stations, can apply for the refund of traffic tax, etc. directly to a petroleum retailer, such as oil stations, which had been stipulated that only the former oil company can make an application for refund of traffic tax, etc. In addition, in cases where a petroleum retailer, such as oil stations, distributes tax-free oil unlawfully, the number of taxes and additional taxes can be estimated against the petroleum retailer, such as oil stations, regardless of the reasons therefor.

B) Even if the Board of Audit and Inspection forged a certificate of supply of duty-free petroleum during the process of tax-free petroleum reduction and exemption, it accused of fraud, etc. on the ground that the relevant agricultural cooperative’s storage that issues a certificate of supply of duty-free petroleum is in fact impossible to verify the forgery, and that it illegally distributes the duty-free petroleum. Meanwhile, according to the Board of Audit and Inspection’s pointed out, the Board of Audit and Inspection improved the system such as the issuance of a certificate of supply, thereby making the current status of supply of duty-free petroleum open to the public in real-time computer.

4) The Plaintiff received a certificate of tax-free petroleum supply in the name of the president of the NAFFF in the name of 1,000 per annum issued by 1,000 local agricultural cooperatives, which is found to have been forged later, is merely 0.3% of the total amount of tax-free petroleum, calculated in terms of the quantity of tax-free petroleum. Considering the content of the request for disposition of the findings of the Board of Audit and Inspection, supra, the Plaintiff

It is virtually impossible to confirm whether the certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum for the submission of the delivered gas station is altered on a daily basis.

D. Determination

1) First of all, the legal relation that collects the deducted and refunded traffic tax pursuant to Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 17(8) (or Article 15(2) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 20(7) (or Article 18(2)) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act apply mutatis mutandis to the legal relation that collects the deducted and refunded traffic tax pursuant to Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. As such, Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, which are the grounds for each disposition of the instant case, are not applicable, and thus, it

In light of Article 113 (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the part concerning the number of traffic tax deducted and refunded under paragraph (1) of the same Article is to be collected. (3) The provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article apply mutatis mutandis according to the relevant goods, and Paragraph (1) of the same Article are to be collected in cases where petroleum products under paragraph (2) of Article 106-2 are not used for the relevant purpose or are transferred within 5 years from the date of carrying them into the country as tax-free goods. In light of the above, Article 113 (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act or the former Special Consumption Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to cases where petroleum products under paragraph (2) of Article 106-2 of the same Act are not used for the relevant purpose or are transferred for the same purpose after being introduced into the country as tax-free goods, and Article 106-2 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7320, Dec. 16, 2006) can be seen as follows.

However, according to the above, since the above case supplied the relevant petroleum products to persons other than farmers, etc. without having them carried in to farmers, etc. at the gas station stage, Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act cannot be applied to the same case, and therefore, Article 17(8) (or Article 15(2) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 20(7) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (or Article 18(2) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act) cannot be applied mutatis mutandis in accordance with the above provisions.

2) Next, the Defendant rendered each of the dispositions in this case based on Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, and thus, whether Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act can be applied to the legal relationship that collects traffic tax deducted or refunded on the same ground as the instant case.

Under Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, traffic tax that the plaintiff has paid or should pay as a taxpayer under Article 7 of the former Traffic Tax Act, while Article 7 (1) of the former Traffic Tax Act provides that "the taxpayer shall report the quantity and price of the goods taken out from the manufacturing place each month, calculated tax amount, without paying the tax amount, deducted tax amount, refunded tax amount, and paid tax amount, etc., and Article 9 (1) of the former Traffic Tax Act provides that "if there is an error or omission in the details of the return under Article 7 of the Traffic Tax Act, the head of the competent tax or customs office shall determine or correct the "tax base and tax amount". According to the language and text of the provision, it is difficult to interpret the "tax amount under Article 9 (1) of the former Traffic Tax Act" as including the "tax amount exempted, deductible tax amount, and tax amount to be deducted after deducting the tax base and tax amount (Article 9 (1) of the former Traffic Tax Act).

However, it is unreasonable to view it as such. The reasons are as follows.

① Article 9 of the former Traffic Tax Act should be interpreted equally in relation to the relationship with other provisions under the same Act, regardless of the relationship with Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, the former Traffic Tax Act has several provisions on tax exemption and has separate provisions on the case where traffic tax is exempted or deducted or refunded in accordance with the provisions on the case where traffic tax is purified. Accordingly, the fixed number of those provisions are followed

Article 15 (2) of the former Traffic Tax Act, which provides that not only the person liable for duty payment but also the person other than the person liable for duty payment (such as shipper, user, etc.) shall be defined. In particular, if the person liable for duty payment does not prove the fact of bringing the relevant goods into the place of entry, the person liable for duty payment shall be the person liable for duty payment or the person liable for duty payment, and if the relevant goods are used for purposes other than their intended purposes after bringing the goods into the place of entry. However, if the number of traffic tax exempted or deducted pursuant to each of the above collection provisions is formally determined, as a result, there is an error or omission in the amount of tax exempted or deducted after deducting the amount of tax exempted or deducted, the act of deducting the amount of tax exempted or deducted pursuant to the above provision of Article 9 of the former Traffic Tax Act shall be limited to the case of tax exemption and deduction under each of the above provisions of Article 9 of the former Traffic Tax Act, as seen in this paragraph.

② The tax exemption system for petroleum products for agriculture, etc. under Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a system recognized for the purpose of tax policy that specifically supports agriculture for farmers, and the provisions that impose traffic tax illegally deducted and refunded in the form of taxes by stating that there was no reason for tax exemption after the traffic tax was refunded due to its accompanying the tax exemption system shall have the nature of administrative sanctions that are the main function of preventing the act of violation in the future (the securing of tax revenue must be limited to secondary function). Accordingly, such sanctions must be carried out according to the location of responsibility for the act of violation, and if they are carried out entirely regardless of this, they shall be in violation of the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution, and the interpretation of the relevant provisions shall be carried out in conformity with such constitutional principles (see Constitutional Court Order 2002HunGa27, Jun. 24, 2004).

From this point of view, interpreting and applying Article 9 of the former Traffic Tax Act as seen in this paragraph leads to the conclusion that the amount of tax to be deducted and the amount of tax to be collected can only be collected solely on the ground that the taxpayer is not liable for disposal other than the intended purpose even if he/she was a taxpayer. This ultimately leads to the conclusion that he/she is liable for the failure to exercise his/her control or the right to make a decision, which is contrary to the principle of self-responsibility. Therefore, even if a taxpayer’s tax return is made after deduction and refund, and there are no grounds for deduction and refund corresponding thereto later, and thus, there were errors or omissions in the deduction and the amount of tax to be reported earlier, in particular, if the taxpayer was not negligent in the process, it is inconsistent with the Constitution to interpret that the collection of the amount of tax to be deducted and the amount of tax to be collected should be based on separate grounds provisions and that it cannot be based on the revision procedure under Article 9 of the

Meanwhile, the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed as follows. In other words, in the situation where the tax authorities, including traffic tax, etc. and the agricultural cooperatives, do not have a mutual verification as to whether petroleum products meet the tax-free petroleum supply requirements until the illegal distribution in this case, it is not possible to request the Plaintiff, a private enterprise, who was ultimately in charge of submitting the certificate of tax-free petroleum supply and paying the tax amount to the Defendant, to verify the above alteration and alteration of the certificate of tax-free petroleum supply, and as seen earlier, the Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit and inspection conducted the process of tax-free petroleum exemption, it is practically impossible to verify the forgery and dailyity of the certificate of tax-free petroleum supply with the relevant agricultural cooperative storage that issued the certificate of tax-free petroleum supply, even if forged the certificate of tax-free petroleum supply in the process of tax-free petroleum exemption, and the same applies to the Plaintiff, who received the tax-free petroleum supply certificate issued in the name of the head of the local cooperative in agricultural cooperatives with approximately 1,000 nationwide, as well as the certificate of tax-free petroleum supply and supply.

3) In full view of these points, each of the instant dispositions rendered by the Defendants, which became aware that they did not constitute the tax-free land for agriculture later, to collect the traffic tax, etc. erroneously refunded, cannot be a ground provision under Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act.

In addition, there are no other grounds for the Defendants to permit the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since each disposition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below to accept all of the claims.