[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable ground to believe that the specialized credit financial business company, which has operated a business leasing business, did not neglect the duty to deliver an invoice to the company on the ground that the operating leasing was the same as financial leasing

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 76 (9) 1 and Article 121 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 164 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706 of Feb. 19, 2005), Article 19 of the Income Tax Act, Article 29, Article 211 (1) and (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 96-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act shall be classified pursuant to Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 164 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the financial business under subparagraph 1 of Article 96-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, and Article 211 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the obligation to deliver invoices under the Corporate Tax Act, as long as the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are stipulated.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the instant dispositions by the Defendants, which imposed penalty tax on the Plaintiffs for non-delivery of an invoice under Article 76 (9) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, does not violate the principle of strict interpretation of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The provisions of the Corporate Tax Act on additional tax to be issued without a statement under Articles 76(9)1 and 121(1) of the Corporate Tax Act concerning the issue of non-delivery of an invoice under Article 76(9)1 and Article 121(1) of the same Act, considering that the sales amount of one party to a transaction is the same as the total payment cost of the transaction partner, and thus, the legislative purpose is to establish the basis tax and train the tax base by comparing it with each other, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the disadvantages suffered by the corporation due to the imposition of additional tax are significantly larger than the public interest, and that the above provisions of the Act on the Additional Tax Rate providing that an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the omitted supply amount shall be added to the amount of the violation of the duty cannot be deemed to be excessively harsh compared to the violation of the duty. The legislative purpose of the above provisions on the additional tax is just and proper, and the above provisions on the additional tax have all the minimum and balance of infringement of legal interest. Thus, in the process of applying the above individual and specific circumstances, it cannot be deemed to violate the principle of proportionality (see, 4.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of proportionality as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the law, and it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill the obligation, and there is a justifiable reason not to impose an additional tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005, etc.).

(3) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the following facts: (a) newly established provisions on the duty to issue invoices, i.e., (a) the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the financial business as a business exempt from value-added tax; (b) the tax authority intended to supplement the problems that make it difficult for the Plaintiffs to achieve the underlying taxation principles by making it difficult for them to prepare and deliver tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act; (c) most specialized credit financial business companies, such as the Plaintiffs, are defined as both financial leases and operating leases under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act; and (d) the tax authorities did not separately issue receipts and operating leases until 204; and (e) there were no special issues or administrative guidance from the tax authorities to issue receipts; (b) there were no differences between the financial leases and operating leases, standards for accounting, regulation under the Corporate Tax Act, etc.; and (b) the issuance of receipts and invoices to the tax authorities in light of the relevant provisions under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)