B. Whether Article 19(1) proviso of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1609 of May 1, 1984) violates the parent law (affirmative)

B. Article 17(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the constructive input tax amount shall be deducted for the prescribed goods, and the method of calculating the amount shall be delegated to the Enforcement Decree, and the constructive input tax amount to be deducted by Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under the premise that there exists the constructive input tax amount to be deducted by Article 62(1) of the same Enforcement Decree. However, the proviso of Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1609 of May 1, 1984) does not apply to the prescribed manufacturing industry, but it is impossible to calculate the amount to be deducted for the prescribed manufacturing industry due to the failure to provide a separate rate, and the above proviso is inconsistent with the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. In light of the judgment below, the court below stated that the plaintiff was entitled to the constructive purchase tax deduction for the payment of value-added tax for the goods manufactured and sold by the manufacturer of wals, wals, sap beverages, etc., which are agricultural products purchased with the exemption of value-added tax pursuant to Article 12 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, although the defendant denied the constructive purchase tax deduction pursuant to the proviso of Article 19 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and issued the administrative disposition of this case, and the proviso of Article 19 (1) of the same Rule limits the constructive purchase tax amount subject to constructive purchase tax, which violates Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is the legal basis for delegation, and therefore, ordered the revocation of the disposition of this case

2. Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the deduction of the so-called constructive purchase tax amount as prescribed by the Presidential Decree on the condition that the entrepreneur who runs the manufacturing business may deduct the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree from the input tax amount in case where the supply of goods manufactured or processed with agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products or forest products supplied with the exemption of the value

Generally, value-added tax is imposed on the supply of goods or services or on the import of goods (Article 1(1) of the Act). Article 17(1) of the Act provides for the so-called input tax deduction, in principle, that the amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur to the Government in order to transfer this amount to the final consumer shall be the amount obtained by deducting the tax amount (2) on the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his/her own business from the tax amount on the goods or services supplied by him/her (1).

In comparison with the provisions of paragraph (1) of the above Paragraph (3) above, if an entrepreneur who receives an exemption from value-added tax from time to time and receives an entire payment of the output tax in relation to the supply of goods manufactured or processed by using the agricultural products as raw materials, the entrepreneur is not exempted from value-added tax (the input tax amount) and the final consumer bears more tax amount than the case where he receives an exemption from the input tax (the input tax amount). Accordingly, the final consumer purchases high-priced goods added to the value-added tax (the input tax amount) originally exempted from the value-added tax, which would result in unreasonable consequences contrary to the purport of exempting the value-added tax in the supply of the agricultural products, and thus, it is interpreted that

Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the amount calculated by multiplying the value of agricultural products, etc. supplied with the exemption of value-added tax by the rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy for each type of business and each type of business shall be deducted under paragraph (3) of the same Article, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1609 of May 1, 1984) which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (amended by Ordinance No. 1609 of May 1

3. Article 19(1) of the above Rule provides that "The rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under Article 62 of the Decree shall be 10/110 (5/105 in cases of goods for export)", and that "the proviso shall not apply to the manufacturing industry of goods for which the fictitious purchase tax amount is not deducted as shown in the attached Table 3." The purport of the provision is that the main sentence of Article 19(1) of the Decree shall not apply to the manufacturing industry as listed in the attached Table 3.

However, while the above proviso does not apply to the prescribed manufacturing industry, it is understood that the above proviso does not provide for the deduction rate because it does not provide for the separate rate of application to it, and it does not provide for the constructive input tax deduction for the prescribed manufacturing industry.

However, the above proviso provisions do not clearly violate the mother law because it does not specify the deduction rate for the prescribed manufacturing industry, so it is impossible to calculate the deduction amount, and furthermore, it is impossible to deduct the constructive purchase tax amount itself.

This is because Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree may be deducted as the input tax amount, and Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount may be deducted as the input tax amount............... the amount calculated as the purchase tax amount..... agricultural products.... by type of business and type shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the rate as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy... In addition, in addition to the purport of recognizing the constructive purchase tax deduction system, Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the method of calculating the amount shall be deducted for the prescribed goods, and only the method of calculating the amount shall be delegated to the Enforcement Decree, and the deduction rate shall not be applied to the manufacturing business, despite the fact that there is the constructive purchase tax amount to be deducted, the above proviso of Article 17 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act does not apply to the above provision of the manufacturing business.

Although the above proviso provides the deduction rate as zero, it is ultimately impossible to deduct the constructive purchase tax amount, and the conclusion cannot change.

Unlike this, the court below's decision is erroneous that the above proviso clause is against the mother law by stipulating that the above proviso clause limits the object of deduction of constructive purchase tax amount, but it is just in the conclusion that the above proviso clause is invalid in violation of the mother law. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed on this ground.

As long as the foregoing proviso is deemed null and void, the administrative disposition of this case is not legitimate on the grounds of the assertion of the arguments. All arguments are groundless.

4. 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 judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)