Article 3 (Taxpayer of Traffic Tax Act)

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

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures and engages in wholesale business for painting.

B. On June 26, 2006, the Busan regional tax office collected samples 1 (Aeluter, TK-7), sample 2 (Influsor, TK-15), sample 3 (Influsor, TK-16), sample 4 (CK-16), samples, and TK-l) from among the products sold by the Plaintiff on June 26, 2006 by the National Tax Service to block the illegal manufacture and distribution of pseudo petroleum products through a survey on the distribution process of solventss.

C. As a result of the testing and analysis of samples collected in the Yong-Nam Nam branch of the Korea Petroleum Quality Control Agency, 3 (Baraththr) of the samples were the petroleum refining compounds containing about 70% of ethyl alcohol and about 2% of ethyl alcohol to the petroleum refining, and the major characteristics of which are linked to the quality standards of gasoline used for automobiles and others and are used as fuel for automobiles, etc., pseudo petroleum products under subparagraph 10 of Article 2 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act. 4 (Bamerth, etc.) of samples were the petroleum refining compounds mixed with approximately 53% of the direction satisfaction compounds (luene, etc.) and about 34% of alcohol (ethyl alcohol, etc.) and the major characteristics of which are mixed with about 34% of petroleum refining, and were determined as similar petroleum products under subparagraph 10 of Article 2 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act if they are used as fuel for automobiles in close vicinity to the quality standards of gasoline for automobiles.

D. On November 10, 2006, the defendant notified the Commissioner of Busan Regional Tax Office of the above facts, imposed traffic tax of KRW 11,764,510 on July 2006 and KRW 1,735,800 on the plaintiff, in accordance with the volume of release of the above Barath and the Barath (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Commissioner of Busan Regional Tax Office on February 2, 2007, but was dismissed on February 27, 2007, and again, on May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 25, 2008.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a charge of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, but on May 15, 2007, was subject to a disposition by the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office to the effect that the Plaintiff was suspected of having been due to the lack of evidence.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, each of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2 and 3, each of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's principal

pseudo petroleum products similar to gasoline under subparagraph 10 of Article 2 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, which are subject to traffic tax, mean products manufactured for the purpose of using them as fuel of automobiles or for the purpose of allowing them to use them as fuel of automobiles. The instant disposition against which the Defendant imposed traffic tax and education tax without any evidence of the fact that it is used as fuel of automobiles, is unlawful.

In addition, if it is not manufactured as a fuel for motor vehicles but is subject to taxation on the grounds that it can be used as a fuel for motor vehicles, it is unfair for the plaintiff from the standpoint of manufacturing and selling paints to the effect that all products can be subject to imposition of traffic tax.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 (Taxable Object and Tax Rate of Traffic Tax Act)

Article 3 (Taxpayer of Traffic Tax Act)

Article 3 (Items of Taxable Goods)

C. Determination

Since taxpayers of traffic tax under the Traffic Tax Act are liable to pay education tax under the Education Tax Act, the legality of the disposition in this case depends on whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay traffic tax, that is, whether the Plaintiff’s products manufactured and sold are subject to traffic tax.

As seen in the above-related Acts and subordinate statutes, pseudo petroleum products under the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act are manufactured by mixing petroleum products or petrochemicals with each other, regardless of their names, and are manufactured for the purpose of using them or allowing them to use them as fuel for automobiles under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Automobile Management Act and vehicles and machinery prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter “motor vehicles, etc.”). Thus, it is obvious that the purpose of using them as fuel for motor vehicles, etc. or allowing them to use them is to be called pseudo petroleum products.

However, according to the Traffic Tax Act, which is the basis law of traffic tax, it stipulates gasoline and alternative oil similar thereto as one of the objects of traffic tax. In other words, the Enforcement Decree of the Traffic Tax Act stipulates that it is possible to use it as fuel for gasoline, pseudo petroleum products under the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and it does not constitute the above pseudo petroleum products, and stipulates that it is subject to traffic tax if it is possible to use it as fuel for automobiles even if it does not fall under pseudo petroleum products.

Furthermore, while the Traffic Tax Act imposes traffic tax for the purpose of securing financial resources required for the expansion of traffic facilities such as roads and urban railroads, the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act provides for traffic tax exemption on the goods that can be used as fuel for automobiles on behalf of gasoline by the final consumer regardless of whether the purpose of the manufacture is to use or use as fuel for automobiles, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed unfair to impose traffic tax on the goods that can be used as fuel for automobiles, etc. (the Large Traffic Tax Act provides that traffic tax exemption is imposed on the goods used as fuel for medical use, medicine, manufacture of fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, or petrochemical as raw materials for petroleum industry, and on the other hand, according to the above facts recognized as above, it is possible to use them as fuel for gasoline as fuel for the purpose of promoting stability of petroleum supply and demand, securing the proper quality of petroleum products and alternative fuel, and thus, it is not possible to use them as fuel for automobiles as fuel for the purpose of using them or for the purpose of using them as fuel for the sake of the education tax of the Plaintiff.

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.