Article 110 of Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs a used car sales business under the trade name of “BB” from OOdong 000 at the time of Jinju.

B. On November 3, 2010, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, confirmed that the amount of KRW 00 of the first half of 2009, KRW 000 of the second half of 2009, and KRW 000 of the first half of 2009, and KRW 000 of the first half of 2010, and that 000 of the actual purchase amount of used cars purchased used cars from a corporate entrepreneur or a general entrepreneur during the pertinent taxable period were not subject to the deduction of recycled waste resources under Article 108 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 110 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and then the Plaintiff’s disposition of the global income was referred to as “the Plaintiff’s disposition of the first half of 209, KRW 00, and KRW 200,000 of the second half of 20, and KRW 200,000 of the global income tax (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition of the global income tax”).

D. Meanwhile, around June 2012 during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant confirmed that some of the transactions subject to the instant disposition were subject to additional deductions under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and subsequently reduced or corrected KRW 00 of the first value-added tax in 2009 and KRW 000 of the second value-added tax in 2009 and KRW 000 of the first value-added tax in 2010, respectively.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the claim portion stated in the annexed Form 1 among the lawsuits in this case

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim in the attached Form 1 is unlawful because the Defendant revoked the imposition of taxes on the said part ex officio during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff has no interest in dispute as no longer by the lawsuit.

3. Whether the rest of the disposition, excluding dismissal, is legitimate.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Even if a used vehicle is taken over from a general businessman or a corporate entrepreneur, if the automobile is not used for business purpose, the Defendant denied the input tax deduction for recycled waste resources without confirmation as to whether the automobile subject to the disposition of this case is a vehicle used for business purpose, and the disposition of this case is based on the basis taxation, fair taxation, and violation of the prohibition of abuse of investigation.

2) It is unreasonable to recognize that the sale price based on the "carp" of the used car site, which is different from the actual sale price, is as the plaintiff's sale price without using data such as account books stating the actual sale price kept by the plaintiff in calculating the sale price.

3) As long as the imposition of value-added tax is illegal and unreasonable, the imposition of global income tax in this case is also unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) Whether the waste resources input tax deduction is unlawful

Article 108 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 110 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037 of Feb. 18, 2010), respectively, are combined, and used cars dealers are not engaged in the State, local governments, and value-added tax (including cases where they concurrently engage in tax exemption business and taxable business). It is reasonable to interpret that the input tax amount for recycled waste can be deducted only in cases where used cars are sold from a simplified taxable person provided for in Article 25 of the Value-Added Tax Act because the relevant automobile has not been actually used for the business and purchases used cars from the business operator not listed in the above provision, so it is not possible to interpret that the deduction of the purchase tax amount for recycled waste resources can be made even if they are purchased for

2) Whether the calculation of the sales amount is unlawful

There is no evidence that the calculation of the sales amount recognized by the defendant, and there is no evidence that the calculation of the sales amount recognized by the defendant is improper (In accordance with each of the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the plaintiff was the person that the sales amount recognized by the defendant at the time of the defendant's tax investigation was legitimate), and the plaintiff's above assertion is without

3) Whether the imposition of global income tax is unlawful

As seen earlier, the input tax deduction method and sales amount for recycled waste resources cannot be deemed unlawful, and there is no circumstance that the Defendant’s additional tax correction disposition on June 2012 was affected by the instant global income tax imposition disposition, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion also has no reason.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the remaining dispositions except the dismissed parts are legitimate.

4. Conclusion

If so, the portion of the claim in the case is dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reason.