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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name "Road ○○," and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his/her name with respect to "No. 701 Street ○," a fishing vessel of 29 tons or more (hereinafter "the instant fishing vessel"). From January 2012 to September 2013, the Plaintiff was supplied with 292,872 liters of duty-free petroleum for fishery from January 201 to September 2013.

B. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the closure of business, and around that time, the Plaintiff lent the ownership of the instant fishing vessel to Hong○○, a wife of Kim○○.

C. Meanwhile, around September 201, 201, Kim ○, the Plaintiff’s mother, was found to have illegally received tax-free petroleum by the competent police station, and thus, it was impossible to use the fishery-free oil for two years until September 2013. However, during the pertinent period, he/she directly run the fishery using the tax-free oil supplied under the Plaintiff’s name and the instant fishing vessel, etc.

D. From January 31, 2012 to September 4, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff, other than a fisherman, was unlawfully supplied tax-free oil for the fishing industry during the taxable period from January 31, 2012 to September 4, 2013, and accordingly, issued a correction and notification of KRW 61,384,60 in total of value-added tax on March 1, 2016, and KRW 216,41,00 in total of traffic, energy and environment tax (the details are as shown in attached Table 1; hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The first Kim ○ intended to purchase the instant fishing vessel, but it was difficult for Red ○○, his spouse, to obtain the ownership of the vessel through a loan secured by the relevant fishing vessel due to bad credit standing, as well as to obtain the transfer of the ownership of the vessel through a loan secured by the relevant fishing vessel, and as it was not supplied with free oil until September 2013, he purchased the instant fishing vessel under the Plaintiff’s name by lending the Plaintiff’s name, and operated the fishery by using the tax-free oil supplied under the Plaintiff’s name.

The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the nominal owner of the instant fishing vessel and the actual user of the duty-free oil are different. However, Article 106-2(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the value-added tax, etc. shall be exempted for petroleum used for the fishing industry. If a specific fishing vessel was actually used for the fishing industry, such provision is applied regardless of the nominal owner of the fishing vessel. This accords with the principle of substantial taxation as prescribed by Article

Therefore, since the fishermen, Kim ○○, a fishing vessel supplied in the name of the Plaintiff, actually engaged in fisheries using the instant fishing vessel, the value-added tax, etc. should be exempted pursuant to the aforementioned provisions. Even if the petroleum products supplied in the name of the Plaintiff are not eligible for tax exemption, the instant disposition that imposes value-added tax, etc. on the Plaintiff, who is merely the nominal owner of the instant fishing vessel

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the attached Table 2.

C. Determination

Article 106-2 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that fishermen shall be exempted from the value-added tax on the supplied petroleum for use in fisheries, but Article 106-2 (1) of the same Act provides that "in case a person who is not farmers or fishermen, etc. is issued with a tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc., the amount equivalent to the value-added tax and the amount equivalent to the reduced or exempted amount of traffic, energy, and environment tax shall be collected."

However, even if the plaintiff is not a fisherman, the plaintiff had the fishery of this case registered the ownership of the fishery of this case in his name and received the purchase card of the tax-free petroleum, and had the plaintiff use the petroleum supplied through the above card by Kim ○, there is no dispute between the parties, or it is recognized by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 10 and the whole pleadings. In light of the above provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, if the defendant issued a notice of correction and payment of value-added tax and traffic tax on the petroleum products supplied from January 31, 2012 to September 4, 2013 through the tax-free petroleum purchase card under the plaintiff's name, it is deemed legitimate measure under Article 106-2 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes should be applied to this case. However, Article 106-2(12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for sanctions against those who participated in a certain manner, such as the use of tax-free oil, regardless of whether the tax-free oil is actually used or whether the benefit accrued therefrom, for the purpose of preventing the convenient supply and distribution of tax-free oil. Thus, it can be deemed that there is a special nature for the above principle of substantial taxation.

According to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, Kim○-○ was at issue with the existing illegal supply and demand of tax-free petroleum, etc., and as a result, from around September 201, 201, it became impossible to use the tax-free petroleum for two years, it can be seen that he continued to be supplied with the instant fishing vessel and tax-free oil in the name of the wife, and that he continued to run the fishery. The Plaintiff was a person who engaged in the act of using the tax-free petroleum by Kim○-○ as above, and the Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid sanctions under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not permissible.

3. Conclusion

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