When taxable goods can be treated as non-taxable goods pursuant to Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act.

Pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act, taxable goods shall be treated as non-taxable goods in specified cases of goods on which the value of the goods is imposed under the goods tax law, and it means that a person who intends to be treated as non-taxable goods shall be exempted from the liability for tax payment by recognizing them as non-taxable goods upon application by the person who intends to be treated as non-taxable goods. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the issue of whether the taxable goods should be treated as non-taxable goods should be determined at least before the taxable goods are determined as taxable goods and the right to taxation thereon arises. Thus, it is reasonable to say that the imposition of the goods tax on the goods under Article 1 of the Goods Tax

(m)Article 3 of the Goods Tax Act (Law No. 2321), Article 1, Article 3 of the Closed Goods Tax Act (Law No. 824), Article 6 of the Administration (wasted Goods Tax Act, Law No. 1967), Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the End Goods Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 5263)

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu58 delivered on May 27, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 11003Da8103 delivered on May 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 23Na210 delivered on June 23, 200, Decision No. 1(8)1913 delivered on Goods

Senior Energy Corporation

Head of Incheon Customs Office

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu58 delivered on May 27, 1975

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of KRW 38,858,200 among the imposition of KRW 39,960,261 on the Plaintiff on February 21, 1973 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The plaintiff company imported machinery products, equipment, or construction equipment equivalent to KRW 47,089,268, which are foreign goods required for the above construction work as a corporation which obtained a license for the establishment of a three-dimensional oil plant and a thermal power plant within the construction area under the former Customs Act (Act No. 1976, Nov. 29, 1967; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the Nowon-gu, Incheon. On February 21, 1973, the defendant received an application from the plaintiff for the import of KRW 39,960,261 (the total value of the above goods and KRW 47,089,268, the total value of the goods and KRW 37,000,000,000,000 from KRW 137,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000).

2. However, according to Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act, the plaintiff asserted that only if the head of the competent district tax office certifies the use of taxable goods as parts or accessories of non-taxable goods, the application for confirmation of non-taxable goods shall be treated as non-taxable goods under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and since there is no restriction provision that the application for confirmation of non-taxable goods shall be filed no later than the time when the application for confirmation is filed through the above procedure, the defendant must have received the application for confirmation of non-taxable goods submitted through the above procedure from the plaintiff, and should have not imposed the customs duties on the above imported goods. However, in regard to the violation of the above taxation disposition, the period of determination of the tax base of the imported goods of this case is the same as the time when the import declaration of this case was made, the defendant

Therefore, pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Goods Tax Act, the taxable goods are treated as non-taxable goods at any time or at any time, using the date the taxable goods can be treated as non-taxable goods pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Goods Tax Act, and it means that the taxable goods should be treated as non-taxable goods upon the application of a person who intends to be treated as non-taxable goods in specified cases, and thus, it shall be exempted from the liability for tax payment. Thus, whether such taxable goods should be treated as non-taxable goods should be determined at least before the taxable goods are determined as taxable goods and the right to taxation thereon arises. In light of the provisions of Article 1 (2), Article 3 and Article 6 of the Goods Tax Act in the case of imported goods, the right to impose the goods arises when the import declaration is made, and therefore, the goods can no longer be treated as non-taxable goods after the goods are determined as non-taxable goods, so even if there is no special provision in Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the same Act at the same time.

In light of this case, since the import declaration of the above goods was made by the Plaintiff on November 2, 1972, the goods became final and conclusive as objects of taxation, and thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff applied for the confirmation of the handling of the non-taxable goods of this case to the Defendant only after the withdrawal of the above goods from the licensed bonded area on February 12, 1973, after which the Plaintiff had withdrawn them for voluntary use. Thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff filed an application for the confirmation of the handling of the non-taxable goods of this case at the same time, which cannot be delayed at that time.

If so, the taxation of this case by the defendant, which was imposed on November 2, 1972, when the import declaration of the above goods was made, was lawful.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed on the ground that it is not reasonable, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff as the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge) and Park Jong-hee