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

Cheong-gu Office

All revocation of each disposition rejecting correction of value-added tax in the attached Table attached hereto against the Plaintiff by the Defendants

(c)

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the manufacturing, processing, sales, and distribution of food, and the Plaintiff, while packaging and selling kimchi in the form of tolerance, disease, or any other similar form, reported and paid the value-added tax for the first period of 2012.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that kimchi sold in the package as above falls under value-added tax exemption. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction against the Defendants for the refund of the first time value-added tax in 2012 declared and paid as shown in the attached Table. However, the Defendants did not make any disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction as stated in the above table on the ground that kimchi sold by the Plaintiff does not fall under value-added tax exemption pursuant to Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 355 of Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) or did not take any disposition for more than two months (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. On December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed all the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 7, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 10 through 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 28(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides for "Simple processed food prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, such as kimchi and dub, etc." as unprocessed food subject to value-added tax exemption. In light of the purport, text, history, etc. of the above provision, the above provision is merely a delegation of authority to determine the scope of simple processed food similar thereto to Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and it cannot be deemed a delegation of authority to restrict the scope of kimchi and dub, which is subject to value-added tax exemption. Nevertheless, Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act sets the scope of unprocessed food subject to value-added tax exemption, while setting the scope of unprocessed food subject to value-added tax exemption and supplying in an independent transaction unit for the purpose of sale, but the disposition of this case is null and void by prescribing.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 12(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "food supplied for food (including agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, and forest products supplied for food) and agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, and forest products produced and not provided for food in the Republic of Korea, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "unprocessed foodstuffs prescribed in Article 12(1)1 of the Act are referred to as "unprocessed food" in this Article. Article 12(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any unprocessed food among unprocessed food" is excluded from "Simple processed food prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, such as kimchi, and simple food, e.g., packing, packing, and so on" under Article 10(1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act stipulating the scope of unprocessedd Tax Act.

Article 28(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the Ministry of Strategy and Finance delegates the authority to determine the scope of exemption from value-added tax among simple processing food of a similar kind, including kimchi and dubs, to the extent of exemption from value-added tax, in light of the purport, language, structure, history, etc. of the above statutes, and Article 28(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is legitimate and effective as it has been prepared

① The purpose of Article 12(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is to reduce the burden of livelihood and promote price stability by reducing the burden of value-added tax on basic food materials necessary for citizens’ dietary life. Accordingly, Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is to: (a) use for food (Article 1) and simple processing (Article 2(2)1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act for food through primary processing to the extent that the inherent nature of the original product does not change, in addition to the unprocessed food that can be seen as non-processed food within a prior meaning; and (b) delegate the detailed scope of the unprocessed food subject to exemption to the Value-Added Tax Act to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (Article 12(1)1 and (4)). Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the detailed scope of the unprocessed food that falls under the scope of non-processed food (Article 12(2)1)1)1).

(2) Article 28(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "a simple processed food prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, such as kimchi and dubal, is defined as "a simple processed food". The prior meaning of "a, etc." is later used after "saccination or language -" (see Standard Korean Language Reference). In the case of use in delegation provisions such as ", etc. prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, etc., it is generally used to clarify the scope and limit of delegation by specifically presenting some of the items to be prescribed by subordinate Acts and subordinate statutes, and it cannot be concluded that the purpose of prohibiting any restriction on such items is to make it difficult to conclude that Article 28(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "a simple processed food" is somewhat comprehensive and abstract, and that broad legislative discretion on simple processed food falling under tax-free food is granted, and it is difficult to see that it is a simple and simple food-processing food-related food-related item to be defined without simple understanding.

③ The instant provision provides that “kimchis shall be supplied with the manufacturing facilities and in an independent trade unit for the purpose of sale, except for the case of temporary packing, such as government entry, disease, or other similar packaging for simple transportation convenience.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff’s use of the packaging as one of the primary processing under Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act as a standard for the exemption of value-added tax is contrary to the purport of the mother’s law, even though the original nature of the packaging does not change; (b) the purport of Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is to appear to make the first processing of packages to the extent that the original nature of the packaging, such as a simple package for transportation or storage, does not change; (c) the purport of deeming all packages to be one process regardless of the specific content of packaging, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use of the packaging facilities cannot be deemed to contravene the purpose of the instant provision, such as increase in the content and content of packing.

④ From the time of enactment by Act No. 2934 of Dec. 22, 1976, the Value-Added Tax Act stipulated “unprocessed foodstuffs (including agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, and forest products for food)” as the subject of value-added tax exemption (Article 12(1)1) and Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8409 of Dec. 31, 1976), one of the unprocessed foodstuffs is “agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, forestry products, and other simple processed foodstuffs prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy other than those referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 111” (excluding those enacted by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1246 of Mar. 11, 197).

As the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 on December 29, 2000, Article 28(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act prescribes "Simple processing food prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, such as kimchi, dub, etc." and separately separate provisions on " simple processing food" in the Enforcement Decree, and stipulates "kimchi/dub" in the Enforcement Decree. In addition, Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 on April 3, 2001, Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act as simple processing food, "kimchi, single, bed, bed, dried, boomed, boomed, and supplied in an independent transaction unit for the purpose of sale." Article 28(2)1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

As above, the Plaintiff asserts that the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act was amended as of December 29, 200 to extend the scope of tax exemption by recognizing "kimchi and dub" as simple processed food subject to value-added tax exemption without any restriction. However, since the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act on January 19, 1978, the scope of simple processed food subject to value-added tax exemption is consistently stipulated as "kimchi, single, blick, blick, blick, lick, licked, licked, licked, lick, licked, lick, and other similar forms". However, it is difficult to distinguish the scope of simple processed food subject to value-added tax exemption from the 2nd category of "kimchi and lick food processing" from the 2nd category of "kimchi and lick food processing without any special grounds to exclude it from the 2nd category of "gover food processing" without any restriction on packing and 1st food products.

Rather, in light of the above amendment history of the Value-Added Tax Act, our VAT has consistently maintained the long-standing attitude of excluding the object of value-added tax exemption in the case of simple processed foodstuffs, including kimchi and ductal, from among simple processed foodstuffs. The purport of “kimchi and dual” is to specially treat “kimchi” as separate from other simple processed foodstuffs is difficult.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.