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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition rejecting correction of each value-added tax as shown in attached Tables 1 through 22 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, selling, distributing food, etc., and in the field of kimchi

From 2012, the second half of 2012, which was packed and sold in the form of entry, disease, or other similar form.

The value-added tax was reported and paid until the first day of 2017.

B. The Kimchi sold by the Plaintiff as above constitutes subject to value-added tax exemption.

Appellants, on July 24, 2017, the Defendants filed a return and payment as shown in attached Tables 1 through 22 against the Defendants.

The Defendants filed an application for rectification for the refund of value-added tax from the second to the first half of 2012 in 2017. However, pursuant to Article 24(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, the Defendants did not make a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for rectification or did not make any disposition to impose two months for the reason that kimchi sold by the Plaintiff is not subject to value-added tax exemption (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal.

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed all the plaintiff's appeal on July 17, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (if any, numbered)

set forth in No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 34 (2) 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act : Unprocessed foodstuffs exempted from the value-added tax

"Simple processed foodstuffs prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, such as kimchi and dub,"

In light of the purport, language, history, etc. of regulations, the above provisions shall be applied to kimchi and to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance in addition to kimchi

It is only a provision that delegates the authority to determine the scope of simple processing foodstuffs similar to those of the value-added tax.

No provision of delegation of authority to limit the scope of kimchi and the booming part falling under the subject shall be deemed to be a provision.

C. Nevertheless, Article 24(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act is value-added tax.

Manufacturing facilities concerning kimchi in paragraph (12), setting the scope of unprocessed foodstuffs subject to exemption;

and packing in an independent trading unit for the purpose of sale or in a similar form;

It does not include the supply of kimchi, but includes the case of temporary packaging such as entrance and disease for simple transportation, which is subject to value added tax exemption (hereinafter referred to as "the provision of this case"), arbitrarily limits the scope of kimchi subject to value added tax exemption, which is null and void by deviating from the limit of delegated legislation. Therefore, the disposition of this case, which was made based on the provision of this case, should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Article 26(1)13 of the Value-Added Tax Act is one of the goods exempt from value-added tax.

Unprocessed foodstuffs (including agricultural products, stock farm products, fishery products and forest products, which are served for food)

C) Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “Article 26(1)1 of the Act shall apply.”

“Unprocessedd foodstuffs” referred to in this section as “unprocessed foodstuffs”

In the meantime, "kimchi, such as kimchi and dub," among unprocessed foodstuffs in subparagraph 1 of paragraph (2).

The Value-Added Tax Act stipulates the scope of unprocessed foodstuffs.

Article 24 (1) [Attached Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Unprocessed Food Classification Table 12 of the Unprocessed Food Classification Table is defined as unprocessed food "(excluding the supply by packaging in an independent trading unit with manufacturing facilities and in an input, disease, or a similar form)" as an unprocessed food.

Article 34(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act delegates to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance the authority to determine the scope of exemption from value-added tax among simple processed food of a similar kind, including kimchi and dubs, as well as the authority to determine the scope of exemption from value-added tax, in light of the purport, text, structure, and history of each of the above statutes. The instant provision was prepared within the scope of delegation, and is lawful and effective. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

① The purpose of Article 26(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act is to reduce the burden of livelihood and promote the stabilization of prices by reducing the burden of value-added tax on basic food materials necessary for citizens’ dietary life. Accordingly, Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is to provide for food by means of primary processing to the extent that the inherent nature of the original product does not change, in addition to the food which is entirely unprocessed from a prior meaning, to the extent that it does not change in its original nature. (Article 1) and simple processing food (Article 26(2)1) are included in the unprocessed food, and to specify the specific scope of the unprocessed food subject to tax exemption (Articles 1 and 2(2)1)1). The phrase “ simple processing food” is to determine the specific scope of the unprocessed food subject to tax exemption by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (Articles 1 and 2(2)1). Therefore, it is recognized that it is reasonable to recognize the wide range of economic discretion of unprocessed food products from among the original product changes.

(2) Article 34 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to unprocessed food charges eligible for tax exemption.

"Simple processed food prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, such as kimchi and the head of the farm" is defined as "Simple processed food."

Here, the prior meaning of "a light" is used after "a master's or fishing -" and the same kind of meaning.

(see Standard Korean Language Reference), "as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance" and "as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance"

When used in delegation regulations, part of the items to be defined in the subordinate laws and regulations generally;

Specifically, it is used to clarify the scope and limit of delegation by way of an example.

(2) No restrictions may be imposed on the same example items under the subordinate laws and regulations.

Therefore, Article 34(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be readily concluded.

The phrase "kimchi, dub, etc." also includes a somewhat comprehensive concept of simple food.

A wide range of legislative discretion is granted for simple processing foodstuffs subject to tax exemption.

Considering the fact that there is a simple processing food fee by presenting specific items of simple processing food.

Helping the understanding of the concept of goods, while engaging in the same kind of kimchi, including kimchi and duba, as well as similar kind of

the purpose of determining the scope of simple processed foodstuffs, and the kimchi and the kimb

to recognize it as a simple processing food subject to tax exemption without any limitation.

It is difficult to do so.

(3) The provisions of this case shall have manufacturing facilities and independent transactions for the purpose of sale with respect to kimchi.

excluding the supply by packaging in the form of a government, a soldier, or any other similar form, but simple below;

rule that "including the case of temporary packaging, such as entry and disease, for the convenience of transportation."

Article 34(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the form, unit, purpose, etc. of packing shall be the basis for the exemption of value-added tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) although Article 34(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act stipulates the packaging as one of the primary processes to the extent that its original nature does not change; (b) the Plaintiff’s use of the packaging as a basis for the exemption of value-added tax goes against the purport of the mother law. However, Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act merely purports that a package that does not change its original nature, such as a simple form of packing for transport or storage, should be viewed as a primary processing; and (c) it does not purport that all the packages, regardless of the specific content of the packing

Furthermore, in a case where the manufacturing facilities are equipped with manufacturing facilities and supplied in an independent trading unit for the purpose of sale by packaging them in an independent trading unit, the leakage of contents is prevented, and the distribution and possession convenience increase in the value of the goods can be seen as significantly increasing. As such, it can be evaluated that the instant provision exceeds the scope of primary processing without changing its nature. Accordingly, the instant provision providing for the determination of tax exemption based on the form of “Packing” and cannot be deemed contrary to the purport of the mother law.

(4) The Value-Added Tax Act has been processed since it was enacted by Act No. 2934 on December 22, 1976.

Additional food "(including agricultural, livestock, fishery, and forest products for food)"

Article 12(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1976, Jan. 1, 1976)

12. Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 8409, Jul. 1, 197) provides that "agricultural, livestock, fishery, forest, and other simple processed foodstuffs prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, which are used for food other than those referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 11," among unprocessed foodstuffs. Accordingly, [Attachment 1] of Article 10(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1246, Mar. 11, 197) provides that "kimchi, single, spoke, spoke, spokeed, spokeed, and spokeed (excluding those packaged in a canned)" as simple processed foodstuffs, and the aforementioned attached Table was amended by the former Enforcement Rule No. 1266, Nov. 1, 1977.

If the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 on December 29, 2000.

“Simple processed food prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, such as kimchi and dub,” in Article 28 (2) 1.

Each provision concerning "Simple processed foodstuffs" separate provisions concerning "kimchi and dub", and separate "kimchi and dub"

The Enforcement Decree stated together with the foregoing, the Gu’s additional provisions amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 on April 3, 2001

Article 10(1) [Attached Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "kimchi, single, boomed, salted, bedered, wraped, walked, walked, walked, walked, walket (excluding the supply by packaging in an independent transaction unit with manufacturing facilities and in an independent transaction unit for the purpose of sale, but including the case of temporary packing for simple transportation convenience, such as face-to-face-to-air and bottled, etc.)" is a simple processed food, and each of the above provisions provides that "Article 34(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 24(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

As above, the Plaintiff was amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act as of December 29, 2000.

The purpose of "kimchi and dub" is to provide simple processed foodstuffs exempt from value-added tax without any particular restriction.

by recognizing the scope of tax exemption. However, as seen earlier, this article argues that the scope of tax exemption is extended.

The Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax is subject to exemption from value-added tax for a period of several hundred and seventy years since January 19, 1978.

The scope of self-processed foodstuffs is consistently defined as "kimchi, flued, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spokes (excluding those packed in the form of ornamental, bottled, spoke-in, spoke-in, spoke-in, etc.)" and there is no special ground to be exempted from value-added tax, unlike other foodstuffs, unlike other foodstuffs. There is no reason to amend the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act to regard the scope of non-taxable foodstuffs, agriculture, livestock, forestry products as the scope of original products.

Any part naturally generated in the course of primary processing to the extent that the original nature is not changed;

Additional boxes of products, etc. (Article 28 (2) and (3) of the Decree) are only written, and the Kimchi and Dual Register

be amended to the extent that it is recognized as a simple processed food exempt without restriction;

The former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act before the amendment of April 3, 2001

[Attachment 1] The term "kim, single, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, and spoke" listed in attached Table 12 can be classified into "kim, single, spoke, spoke, spoke, and spoke," "spoke, spoke," "spoke, spoke," which correspond to the spoke, and "dub" which correspond to the spoke processed food, rather than for special treatment separately from other simple processed food. Therefore, it seems that the plaintiff's above assertion is difficult to accept.

Rather, in light of the above amendment history of the Value-Added Tax Act, our value-added Tax Act

Acts and subordinate statutes shall be simple processing which has undergone certain packaging among simple processed foodstuffs, including kimchi and ductal.

In case of foodstuffs, the attitude of exclusion from value-added tax exemption is consistent for a long time.

The purpose of "kimchi and dub" is to specially treat "kimchi and dub" separately from other simple processed foodstuffs.

It is difficult to find out.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of the claims are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.