[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1985.5.15.(752),638]
Effect of Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (=Invalidation)
Article 17(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act only delegates the method of calculating the amount of tax to the Enforcement Decree by determining the type of goods to be subject to deduction of the amount of tax of fictitious purchase. Under Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, only the "rate" to be multiplied by the value of agricultural crops, etc. which is the basis for calculating the amount of tax of fictitious purchase is delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, but the main provision of Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which leads to the restriction, is again limited to the scope that the provisions of the main provision of Article 19(2) of the same Act, which
Article 17(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant
East Industry Corporation
Head of the Southern Mine District Office
Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu24 delivered on May 1, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where an entrepreneur engaged in a manufacturing business imposes a tax on goods manufactured or processed with agricultural, livestock, fishery, or forestry products supplied as raw materials with the exemption of value-added tax, an amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree may be deducted as the input tax amount, and delegates only the method of calculating the amount of constructive purchase tax to the Enforcement Decree. In accordance with this provision, Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount that can be deducted as the constructive purchase tax amount shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the agricultural, livestock, fishery, or forestry products provided with the exemption of value-added tax by the "rate" under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy by the value of the agricultural, livestock, fishery, or forestry products provided with the exemption of value-added tax, and that the amount that can be deducted as the constructive purchase tax amount shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the agricultural, fishery, fishery, or forestry products provided with the exemption of value-added tax by the Financial Services Commission (Enforcement Rule).
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the main sentence of Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule is an invalid provision, and there is no different opinion because there is no misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju