[특별소비세부과처분취소][미간행]
The case holding that, inasmuch as the PC camera photographer sent to a computer by affixing the face, etc. of the victim's body, and one of the background pictures entered in the computer is combined with the face, etc. of the victim's body, and then printed out in the form of a Sticker using a heat-electronic local printer, the manufacturer's ratio from the manufacturing cost to the PC camera does not exceed 15%, and the cost of the other part is much higher than that of the other part, and thus the above Stick photographer does not constitute a photographic machine, which is subject to special consumption tax under Article 1 (11) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, it is not a high-class
Article 1 (2) 4-2 subparagraph 1 of Article 1 (2) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5495 of Jan. 8, 1998) (see current Article 1 (2) (b) of the Special Consumption Tax Act) and Article 1 (11) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 3 subparagraph 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16607 of Dec. 3, 199)
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of the Office of Government
Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu5728 delivered on August 25, 1999
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Sticker of this case (hereinafter the article of this case) is a machine that combines one of 36 background pictures entered in the computer with the face of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body, and that the ratio of production cost of the article of this case to PC cover 15% is more than that of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5495 of Jan. 8, 1998; hereinafter the article of this case) since it is difficult to identify the cost of the article of this case to use the article of this case by PC 486D 2, and it cannot be seen that the part of the article of this case to be subject to the special consumption tax of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the owner of this case is more than that of the body of the body of the body of the body of this case.
In light of the relevant statutes and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the above photographer is a photographer as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the judgment of the court below as to the standard of determining the high-class photographer among the photographer is merely a assumptive and supplementary judgment, and as long as the judgment of the court below is just, which does not constitute a high-class photographer subject to special consumption tax, and thus does not constitute a high-class photographer subject
Therefore, the appeal is 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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)