2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are entrepreneurs operating wholesale and retail business, such as duty-free oil, under the trade name of “OOCOIC oil station” in the ZZ 597 of the OCO, and both BB and Plaintiff LCC were joint operators of 50% shares by 2010, respectively. The Plaintiff both B and Plaintiff LCC were sole operators since 2011.

B. According to the Busan Regional Tax Office’s audit and inspection records of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Defendants notified the Plaintiffs of the following: (a) the sum of the refunded individual consumption tax, traffic, energy and environment tax, education tax, and driving tax (OOOO in 2010, OOOOO in 2011, OOOOO in 201, 201, hereinafter “instant refund”); and (b) the amount of income tax is not added to the tax base of global income tax in 2010 and 2011; and (c) the Plaintiffs reported the revised return. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid the instant refund after filing a revised return of total income tax on March 22, 2013 in addition to the total amount of income in 2010 and 2011.

C. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a request for correction against the head of the relevant tax office for the total amount of OOOO and additional tax OOOO won that was paid for the global income tax return in 2010; (b) OOO won that was paid for the global income tax return in 2011; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a request for correction against the head of the relevant tax office on July 11, 2013 for the total amount of OOO won and additional tax OO won that was paid for the global income tax return in 2010.

D. On June 4, 2013, the head of Si/Gun/Gu, the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu, the head of Si/Gun/Gu, on September 3, 2013, issued the instant provisional corrective disposition (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant provisional corrective disposition”). The reasons are that the Plaintiffs were required to deduct the instant refund from the necessary expenses (purchase price) in 2010 and 2011, without reflecting it, underreporting the comprehensive income tax.

E. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, but their claims were dismissed on November 27, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1-1 through 6, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Article 26 (10) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the amount of tax refunded to a petroleum retailer pursuant to Article 106-2 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall not be included in the gross income that will calculate the income amount in the relevant taxable period." Furthermore, the plaintiffs correspond to public opinions, and the plaintiffs trusted the explanation that "the amount of tax reduced or exempted, which has been directly refunded, to farmers and fishermen, etc. who supplied tax-free oil to him/her," and accordingly, reported the comprehensive income tax without including the refund in the gross income.

Nevertheless, the Defendants notified the Plaintiffs of the instant refund money to be included in the global income tax base in 2010 and 201, based on the established rule that the amount of tax-free petroleum reduced or exempted, which does not fall under the public opinion of the tax authorities, as well as not only was delegated by the law but also does not fall under the public opinion of the tax authorities, according to the records of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and notified the Plaintiffs of the revised return without any such content.

Inasmuch as there is no cause attributable to the Plaintiffs in the above revised report, the revised report should be revised in accordance with the above laws and regulations, but the refusal by the Defendants goes against the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of good faith, which is the large principle of national tax imposition. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In full view of Articles 24, 26(10), and 27 of the Income Tax Act, Article 51(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 106-2(1)1 and (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 111133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same), in cases where a petroleum retailer supplies petroleum to farmers and fishermen, etc., and receives a refund of individual consumption tax, traffic, energy, environment tax, education tax, and driving tax reduction or exemption, it is reasonable to interpret that the relevant refundable tax amount is not included in necessary expenses, unless it is included in gross income when calculating the amount of income in the relevant taxable period.

2) The fact that the Plaintiffs did not deduct the instant refund from necessary expenses in 2010 and 2011 and that the Plaintiff reported and paid the global income tax return in 201 and 2011 did not conflict between the parties.

In light of the above relevant provisions, if the plaintiffs received the refund of this case, which is the amount of tax-free oil in 2010 and 2011, the amount corresponding to the total amount of income in the initial year, the expenses corresponding to the total amount of income shall be deducted from the "necessary expenses (purchase cost)". If the purchaser price does not deduct the refund of this case from the purchase cost, the amount of income (=total income - necessary expenses) shall be calculated by including the refund of this case in the total amount of income. The amount of income calculated by deducting the refund of this case from the total amount of income in the year concerned and the necessary expenses of the year concerned, upon filing a revised return according to the notification of the defendants by the plaintiffs, is identical to the amount of income calculated by including the refund of this case in the

In addition, the Plaintiffs asserts that the pertinent disposition infringed on the interests of the Plaintiffs trusted in good faith, on the premise that the tax authority’s explanation of the guide book for income tax return published by the National Tax Service, on the premise that the pertinent public opinion was justifiable. Even if the tax authority rendered an explanation through the above guide book that “the amount of reduced or exempted tax paid directly to farmers, fishermen, etc. by supplying tax-free oil should not be included in the gross income, such explanation alone cannot be deemed as having expressed the view that the instant refund would not be deducted from the necessary expenses (purchase cost) in 2010 and 2011, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs violated the principle of good faith alleged by the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the instant disposition is a lawful disposition under the relevant statutes, and thus, cannot be deemed as having violated the principle of no taxation without law.

3) Therefore, the prior Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit under a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.