B. Whether Article 8 subparag. 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the above is beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law or is invalid in violation of the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

B. In the case of goods subject to special consumption tax, their tax base should be the price of the goods in question if they are “goods”: Provided, That since the price of the goods varies from time to time in the course of multi-stage distribution consumption, as to which stage the goods concerned are to be considered as the price of the goods, the tax base and taxpayer and taxpayer are determined by specifying the liability for payment of special consumption tax on the goods when the goods are taken out from the manufacturing place to the manufacturing place. Thus, as long as the provisions stipulate that the price of the goods at the time of taking out from the manufacturing place should be the tax base and the price of the goods at that time should be the tax base of the goods themselves, the provisions of Article 8(3) of the Special Consumption Tax Act can be delegated to the Enforcement Decree concerning the calculation of the price of the goods at that time, i.e., the price of the goods at that time, which is the tax base of the special consumption tax, are to be determined by the Presidential Decree, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the price of the goods to be taken out to another actual market price or sale price of the goods in question.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded an agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party corporation on the supply of the connection product of this case with the non-party corporation under the pre-determined composition and prescription, and supplied the non-party corporation with the product name independently selected and used the trademark. The non-party company registered the trademark in its name and used the trademark right to be used for the contract product to be sold to the non-party company. The non-party company purchased 4 million % of the contract product with the plaintiff on the basis of 100 litres unit and executed the contract product under the responsibility of the non-party company with the non-party company, and the contract term is automatically extended one year without any written notice. The non-party company concluded an agreement on the supply of the connection product of this case to the non-party corporation with the non-party company's exclusive purchase price of the product of this case with the non-party 2,95,095 related to the non-party company's product of this case to the non-party 1's exclusive sale price of the product of this case.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the provisions of Article 8 (1) 1, 2, (3), (1) and (2), Article 3 subparag. 1 and 2, and Article 4 of the Special Consumption Tax Act, the price of the goods manufactured and taken out by the manufacturer of the goods subject to the special consumption tax (excluding the goods provided for in Class 1 of Article 1 (1) of the Act) shall be the tax base of the special consumption tax, but the matters necessary for the calculation of the price which forms the tax base of the special consumption tax shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the price of the goods shall be the amount actually sold or taken out by the seller or manufacturer: Provided, That if it falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the price of the goods manufactured and taken out from the manufacturing place shall be the amount set forth in each of the following subparagraphs; if the special agreement is concluded with the manufacturer to sell or sell the goods manufactured by the manufacturer, the price of the goods shall not be determined by the special agreement or the price determined otherwise by the court below that the goods concerned fall under the special consumption tax or sale price of the goods concerned shall not be determined by the special agreement.

In addition, it is not clear that whether a special contract is sold under the latter part of Article 8 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and it should be determined in light of the provisions of the same former part of the same "in the case of taking them out at a price lower than

On the other hand, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides that with regard to the calculation of the shipment price in the above case, the calculation of the amount equivalent to the selling price of the relevant sales outlet or special contract sales outlet under Article 8 (10) and 11 shall be based on the ratio of the unit price of the same kind and quality sold at the sales outlet or sales outlet of the relevant special contract seller during the month of the date of shipment from the manufacturing place to the amount calculated by applying the quantity of the goods taken out from the manufacturing place. As recognized by the plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff sold the whole taxable goods of this case to the non-party company, the plaintiff cannot form the plaintiff's sales outlet or the plaintiff's ordinary sales price.

Ultimately, as pointed out by the lower judgment, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine or incomplete reasoning.

With respect to the third point:

According to the provisions of the above Act and the Enforcement Decree, since the goods of this case are "goods" subject to special consumption tax, their price should be the tax base. However, since the price of the goods is frequently different from that of the goods in the multi-stage distribution consumption process, as to which stage the price of the goods in question should be considered as the price of the goods in question, the price of the goods at the time when the goods are taken out from the manufacturing place (Article 8) shall be considered as the price of the goods at the time of the goods (Article 3 of the Act) and the person manufacturing and taking them out shall be made to the manufacturing place (Article 4 of the Act) by clearly stating that the person liable to pay the special consumption tax on the goods should be liable

In addition, as long as the Act provides that the price of goods at the time of taking out of a manufacturing place shall be the tax base of the price determined by the Enforcement Decree, the price at the time of taking out and at that time shall be that of the goods themselves, i.e., the price at the time of taking out, that is, the ordinary price or the market price, may be delegated to be determined by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, the necessary matters concerning the calculation of the price which is the tax base of Article 8(3) of the same Act shall be delegated to be determined by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, the price at the time of taking out under Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.

The assertion is without merit that Article 8 (1) 2 of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides that "price at the time when goods are taken out from a manufacturing place" as the tax base even if the subject of the special consumption tax is the goods themselves, or that Article 8 (1) 2 of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides for "price at the manufacturing place" as the subject standard, and the provisions of the above mother law are merely that Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree goes beyond the delegation scope of the mother law or that the provision of the above mother law is invalid in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, on the premise that the actual transaction price of the relevant goods are the tax base. The argument is without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)