1. As to the second ground for appeal

A. Article 106-4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that "50/100 of the payable amount of value-added tax on a general taxi transport business entity under the Passenger Transport Service Act shall be reduced until the taxable period ending on or before December 31, 2008," and Paragraph (2) provides that "the abated tax amount under paragraph (1) shall be used for the improvement of treatment and welfare of general taxi transport employees under the Passenger Transport Service Act as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation," while Paragraph (3) provides that "where the Minister of Construction and Transportation confirms that a general taxi transport business entity under the Passenger Transport Service Act has not used it pursuant to paragraph (2) within six months from the end of the reporting and payment period of value-added tax reduced pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), he shall immediately notify the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the notification thereof shall be collected an amount equivalent to 10/3/1/1/1/2 of the general taxi transport service.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found that: (a) the Plaintiff, who is a general taxi transport business entity, paid the amount of value-added tax on November 1, 207 and the amount of value-added tax on December 31, 2008, calculated on 10 to 20,000 won per worker; (b) the amount of value-added tax on 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 7,000 won for 17,07,07.

Based on the above facts, inasmuch as the Plaintiff entered into each of the instant agreements with the labor union and paid 50,000 won per worker per month from November 2007 to March 2009 additionally to the previous wage, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was used for improving the treatment and welfare of ordinary taxi drivers by either directly paying to the Plaintiff’s general taxi drivers or by paying them including wages, etc., and even if the Plaintiff used part of the amount of value-added tax reductions after six months from the end of the payment deadline for the report of value-added tax return, the amount of value-added tax reductions for the first period and the first period portion and the second period portion and the amount of value-added tax reductions for the second period were not used within six months from the end of the payment deadline for the report of value-added tax return, the lower court determined that it cannot be collected as additional because it was inevitable for the Plaintiff to delay all the negotiations with the higher employers’ association and the labor union and the individual negotiations between the Plaintiff and the labor union.

C. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff used the whole amount of the tax amount reduced for the first and final portion for the year of 2007 and the second scheduled amount of value-added tax for the improvement of treatment and welfare for general taxi drivers for the following reasons.

Article 100-2 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act amended by Act No. 4952 of Aug. 4, 1995 introduced a system for reducing 50/100 of the amount of value-added tax payable to a general taxi transport business entity who is liable to pay value-added tax so as to improve the poor treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers. However, unlike its original purpose, labor-management has frequently occurred due to the problems such as appropriation of the amount of value-added tax reduced to the welfare expenses that the general taxi transport business entity had previously borne, and Article 106-4(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004 provides that the amount of value-added tax reduced should be used only for the purpose of improving treatment and improvement of welfare of general taxi transport business entities, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation enacted on Apr. 4, 2005 also requires the general taxi transport business entity to reduce the amount of value-added tax imposed tax as the basic amount of value-added tax, etc.

In light of the legislative intent of the system of reducing the amount of value-added tax imposed on general taxi transport business operators and the details of enactment and amendment of relevant regulations, even if the labor-management agreed that only a part of the amount of value-added tax reduced is paid and the remainder is included in wages, etc., the amount of value-added tax reduced is subject to the additional collection of value-added tax provided in Article 106-4 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, unless there are special circumstances that make it possible to evaluate that the whole amount of value-added tax reduced was actually used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi transport business operators in light of the motive, circumstances, etc. leading up to the agreement between the labor-management and the labor-management, barring any special circumstances that make it difficult to say that the whole amount of value-added tax reduced was actually used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted by the lower court, 16 transportation companies including the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s labor union (hereinafter “regional labor union”) concluded wage agreements in 195 that raise basic wages and allowances, and stated that “direct benefit out of value-added tax has been included in wages, and indirect benefit out of value-added tax has the same provisions as the addition to the wage agreement in 1996 concluded by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s labor union, but no specific provision on the amount of value-added tax reduced or exempted shall be deemed to have been included in the amount of wage reduced or exempted for 197 years, on the premise that the difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s labor union is included in the amount of wage reduced or exempted for 195 and 206, and it is difficult to view that the difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s labor union and the amount of value-added tax reduced or exempted for 20 years, including value-added tax and value-added tax on the amount of wage reduced or exempted for 160 years prior to the conclusion of the wage reduction or exemption.”

Therefore, the lower court determined, according to each of the instant agreements, the amount used by the Plaintiff for the improvement of the treatment or welfare of general taxi drivers out of the amount of the tax to be reduced for the first period of the year of 2007 and the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of the year of 2008 and the amount of KRW 50,000 per month that the Plaintiff paid to an individual employee for the period from November 1, 2007 to 17, by calculating the amount of the value-added tax that the Plaintiff directly paid to the ordinary taxi drivers each month, and by adding the amount that can be deemed to have been directly paid in accordance with the guidelines of Article 106-4(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the difference between the amount of value-added tax reduced and the amount of direct payment may be deemed to have been used for improving the treatment or welfare of general taxi drivers by the agreement of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of value-added tax reduced, which can be deemed to have been used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the amount equivalent to value-added tax reductions included in the amount of wage increase in 2007 and the amount equivalent to value-added tax reductions included in the amount of wages under the wage agreement in 1995 and 1996 shall be deemed as including the amount of value-added tax reductions at least 13,12 won per month in the wages paid by the plaintiff in 207, unless it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not include the amount of value-added tax reductions, unlike the above wage agreement, in relation to whether the amount equivalent to value-added tax reductions included in the amount of wage increase was continuously paid in accordance with the wage agreement in 195 and 196.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Even if a collective agreement is invalidated, the part concerning individual labor conditions, such as wages, are still the content of the employee’s labor contract to which the collective agreement was applied, and still regulate the employer and the employee. However, if a new collective agreement is amended, it does not remain as an individual labor contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2007). Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the effect of the wage agreement in 195 or 1996 on individual labor conditions, such as wages, does not extend to the period after the entry into force of the newly concluded collective agreement or the wage agreement in 196. Rather, each of the instant agreements appears to be premised on the premise that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax reduced, calculated as the wage increase included in the wage increase pursuant to the wage agreement in 195 and 1996, at least from 207, is not included in the amount of value-added tax reduced.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the portion of the wage agreement in 1995 and 1996, which included the reduced amount of value-added tax in calculating the reduced amount of value-added tax, naturally effective from the date of entry into force of the collective agreement and the wage agreement in 2001, included part of the reduced amount of value-added tax in the wages in 2007. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the previous collective agreement following the conclusion of a new collective agreement, or by finding facts without evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)