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

A. In accordance with Article 106-4(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), the Plaintiff, a general taxi transport business entity, declared and paid value-added tax by reducing 50% of the amount of tax payable as follows. The head of Geumcheon-gu inspected the Plaintiff’s actual use of the amount of tax reduced for the second period portion in 2007 and the amount of tax reduced for the first period portion in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “amount of tax reduced”). As a result, the head of Geumcheon-gu notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff failed to use part of the amount of tax reduced in this case as follows.

B. According to the above notification, the defendant issued a disposition of correction that imposed the value-added tax for the second term portion of the value-added tax for 2007, including interest and additional tax, on May 1, 2009 and the first term portion of the value-added tax for 3,094,840 for 208, on the ground that the plaintiff did not use it for the improvement of treatment and welfare within 6 months from the end of the due date of the return and payment period of the value-added tax that has been partially reduced. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal on October 5, 2009, the defendant imposed the value-added tax for 207, including the second term portion of the value-added tax for 207, 1,439, 248 won and 1,472,026 won for 1,208, 208, 2008, 208, 206, 208, 2008.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 2, 14, 16 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the reduced tax amount in this case, the Plaintiff paid 34,328 won to workers on a monthly basis, including 34,328 won per worker under a labor-management agreement, and additionally paid 50,000 won per worker per month to the Plaintiff’s trade union as welfare improvement expenses. The amount used by the Plaintiff for the improvement of treatment and welfare of workers has been 29,29,800 won per month for the second period of 2007 determination, and 29,980,104 won for the first period of 208 determination. This exceeds 23,973,530,510,130 won, which is the value-added tax reduction tax amount in the same taxable period, including 20,000 won for each claim period of 4,50,000 won for each of the above taxation period, 200,000 won for 20,0000 won for 20,000 won for 28,371,71.7

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Implementation of the VAT reduction and exemption system for general taxi transport business entities

(A) Upon the amendment of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act by Act No. 4952 on August 4, 1995, with respect to general taxi transport business operators under the former Automobile Transport Business Act (repealed by the implementation of the Passenger Transport Business Act), 50/100 of the amount of the value-added tax paid to them, the Minister of Construction and Transportation issued a public notice to instruct and supervise the relevant business operators and relevant organizations to provide guidance and supervision to enable them to autonomously determine and implement the tax amount of the value-added tax, considering that the purpose of the amendment is to provide support to improve the poor treatment of taxi drivers through the implementation of the reduction and exemption of the value-added tax on a national city/Do.

(B) The former Special Taxation Control Act, amended by Act No. 7322 on Dec. 31, 2004 and enforced on Jan. 1, 2005, newly established Article 106-4(2) that "the value-added tax reduction amount shall be used for the improvement of treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation." Accordingly, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, around April 2005, prepared the "Guidelines for the Use of the Tax Reduction Amount for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Local Governments, the National Federation

(2) Progress of agreement between the Plaintiff and its trade union

(A) On December 31, 1995, the Seoul taxi business council and the Korea taxi business union that received delegation from 16 transportation companies, including the Plaintiff, added basic pay and allowances to the conclusion of the wage agreement in December 31, 1995, and calculated direct benefits out of the value-added tax mitigation tax as wages, and the indirect benefits were specified in the Addenda that the business entity would utilize the portion of the reduced value-added tax for the promotion of the welfare of its members (the above wage agreement does not specify the specific amount reflected in the wages, but the above 16 transportation companies did not follow the routes of the Korean taxi business association and were affiliated with the Korean National Housing Trade Union, which was incorporated into the Korean National Housing Business Association (the labor union seems to be affiliated with the Korean National taxi business union in around 197) and the Seoul Local taxi business union, which included the basic amount of allowances and allowances of Grade 195-126, 128 labor disputes in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which included the amount of the reduced value-added tax in Grade 36, 3637 and 38.

(B) After the amendment of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act was made and the guidelines of this case were prepared accordingly, the plaintiff agreed on June 17, 2005 to pay 60,000 won per month between the plaintiff's trade union and the worker for six months from the same month. After that agreement, the plaintiff again made with the plaintiff's trade union on November 14, 2006, and the plaintiff shall pay 33,000 won per month for each worker temporarily from November 2006 to June 207 in addition to the previous wage, but even before that agreement, if a higher organization entered into a negotiation on the wage agreement and value-added tax reduction amount for the year 2007, it agreed on the result and re-consultation on the unpaid portion (hereinafter "labor-management agreement"). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19120, Nov. 14, 2006>

(C) On June 27, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to faithfully implement the wage agreement and collective agreement in 2001 with the Plaintiff’s trade union until the conclusion of negotiations with higher-level organizations in 2007. In the event that such negotiations do not take place, the Plaintiff agreed to consult on the payment method of value-added tax reduced. On November 1, 2007, with the Plaintiff’s trade union, the amount of value-added tax reduced from November 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008 was added to the amount of value-added tax reduced from November 2007 to March 2009, the Plaintiff paid 50 million won per worker in addition to the amount of value-added tax reduced from the amount of value-added tax reduced for the first period of November 7, 2007 to March 209 (hereinafter “labor-management agreement”).

(D) Then, on June 20, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed with the Plaintiff’s labor union in addition to the agreement on November 1, 2007, as follows (hereinafter “labor-management agreement”).

(E) In accordance with the agreement dated November 1, 2007 and June 20, 2008, the Plaintiff paid 50,000 won per capita to the worker from November 2007 to March 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6, 9-14, 18-20, 25 evidence, Eul 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14, 16 evidence Nos. 7-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that the only evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone included the amount of value-added tax reduction of KRW 34,328 per worker in the monthly wage paid to workers from October 2007 to March 2008, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(A) Although the Plaintiff’s assertion appears to have included the amount of reduced tax of KRW 34,328 in the monthly wage at the time when comprehensively taking account of the details of the determination by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Labor Relations Commission in the case of the 1995 Wage Agreement and the application for arbitration of labor disputes related thereto, the Plaintiff’s trade union was not in compliance with the routes of the 201-2 Seoul Regional Taxi Trade Union at that time. The Plaintiff, like the Plaintiff, separately determined how the amount of reduced value-added tax should be included in the monthly wage by concluding a wage agreement with the 1997 Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Plaintiff also appears to have separately concluded the wage agreement with the Plaintiff’s labor union or the 3th National Housing Labor Relations Commission, including the amount of reduced tax of KRW 34,328, Jun. 27, 2007, the Plaintiff’s agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the 201-201-201-201-201-206.

(B) If the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of reduced tax was reflected in the monthly wage from 1995 to 34,328 won, it would have been discussed whether the labor-management agreement on the method of paying the remaining amount excluding the amount of reduced tax reflected in the monthly wage was reached, and the amount of reduced tax would have been reflected in the monthly wage. In fact, according to the contents of each labor-management agreement, the Plaintiff did not agree on whether the remaining amount should be considered as the object of the agreement considering that the amount of reduced tax was already reflected in the monthly wage at the time of each labor-management agreement, and the amount of reduced tax reflected in the monthly wage is not considered as the object of the agreement and the amount of reduced tax reflected in the revision of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, if the presumption clause was prepared in order to avoid this, it would have agreed to pay the reduced tax amount to the employee at the time of the Plaintiff’s labor union and the labor-management agreement, but it would have been on the premise that part of the Plaintiff’s claim that the reduced tax amount was paid to the employee (see attached Form 208).

(C) On December 31, 2004, the amendment of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 106-4(2) provides that "the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall use the mitigated tax amount under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation," and accordingly, although the head of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation prepared the instant guidelines and notified them, the Plaintiff did not manage separate disbursement books concerning the use of the abated tax amount, and did not state that some of the abated tax amount is included in the basic salary even in the disbursement books or monthly specifications, and did not comply with the matters stipulated in the instant guidelines, such as jointly settling and verifying the use of the abated tax amount with the representative of the employee or not notifying the employees of the result.

(2) Although the labor-management agreement signed on June 20, 2008 was concluded that the remainder of the difference excluding the amount paid to workers out of the amount of value-added tax reduced, and the amount paid as part of the indirect cost, the welfare welfare fund for union members and the wage was paid. However, in light of the purport of the amendment of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act or the contents of the guidelines of this case prepared accordingly, the labor-management agreement alone cannot be deemed as having been used for the improvement of workers’ treatment and welfare after the death.

(3) Ultimately, from the monthly wage for workers from October 2007 to March 2008, 34,328 won per worker is not deemed to be included in the value-added tax reduction, and as long as the labor-management agreement alone cannot be deemed to have used part of the amount yet to be used, even if the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments are recognized, the total amount used according to the allegation shall not be deemed to be less than 14,986,504 won for the second period of 2007, and 15,632,480 won for the first period of 208, 29,800 won for the first period of 209,80 won for 29,980, 104 won for each worker, 13,13, 2963), 13, 147, and 2708 won for the second period of 207, 2005 won for each of the plaintiff's arguments.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.