The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that the elements fertilizer produced by Honam Fertilizer Co., Ltd. before the Plaintiff’s merger falls under the chemical drugs under Class 3-2-7 of Article 1 of the Goods Tax Act, which are objects of taxation, but falls under the fertilizers under subparagraph 8-2 of Article 11-2 of the same Act, and that the above company had to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for tax exemption under Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act for the removal of 47,300 tons of elements fertilizer from September 5, 1972 to February 2, 1973 and for the removal of 47,300 tons under Article 6 of the same Act and the special purpose tax exemption under Article 11-2 of the same Act before the removal in order to be exempt from the goods tax, the Defendant had to submit the application to the Defendant for tax exemption under Article 17(2) of the same Act and, notwithstanding its approval, had to be removed from the Defendant’s specific purpose of taxation before the Plaintiff’s revocation.

2. Article 11-2 of the Goods Tax Act provides that goods falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be exempted from the customs duties under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the fertilizer was designated under subparagraph 8.

The so-called "special purpose tax exemption" under Article 17 (1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the procedure of tax exemption shall be carried out from the factory by filing a tax exemption report with the head of the competent tax office in accordance with the prescribed form (Article 7-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Goods Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy), and such procedure shall be followed. Thus, since fertilizers are controlled by the Fertilizer Control Act, and there is an exception in the ex post facto procedure after carrying out under Articles 17-2, 17 (3) and 19 of the above Enforcement Decree, the above interpretation cannot be different. Thus, the above interpretation cannot be viewed as a conditional non-taxation exemption as stated in the above theory, and it is clear that the time of the application for the approval of tax exemption should be carried out at the same time prior to carrying out of the factory, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the application for tax exemption is unlawful after filing a tax exemption report without the approval of the ex post facto taxation on the goods. Therefore, it is justified in the conclusion that the tax exemption application of the above provision is unlawful.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)