Daegu District Court 2012Guhap2759 (2013.06)

Cho Jae-chul201-Gu 1179 (2012.08)

Additional taxes imposed by a general taxi transport business entity on the ground that they were not paid to transport employees are legitimate.

The reduced amount of value-added tax is prohibited from being used in the part that had been borne by the employer before the reduction, and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs sent a reply that the reduced amount would be reflected in the retirement pay.

2013Nu1615. Revocation of imposition of value-added tax

1. AA Transport Corporation; 2. BB Transport Corporation;

1. The director of the tax office in Daegu; and

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Guhap2759 Decided September 6, 2013

January 10, 2014

January 24, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of the head of Dong Daegu District Tax Office on the imposition of the first-value-added tax for the plaintiff AA transportation corporation on March 9, 2012 and the imposition of the second-value-added tax for the second-value-added tax for the year 2007, the second-value-added tax for the year 2007, the first-value-added tax office for the year 2008, the second-value-added tax office for the second year 2008, the first-value-added tax office for the year 2009, the second-value-added tax office for the second year 2009, the second-value-added tax office for the second year 209, the first-value-added tax office for the first year 200, the first-value-added tax office for the first year 200, and the imposition of the second-value-added tax office for the first year 2012 against the plaintiff BB transportation corporation.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning for this case’s argument is identical to that for the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

"If the amount of the reduced tax in this case is paid in cash to a transport employee, the increase in the retirement allowance inevitably occurs. Considering that the plaintiffs who are merely the "person who delivers the increased amount of the reduced tax in value-added tax that the government received to a transport employee" cannot be the subject of the increased amount of the retirement allowance burden, the plaintiffs can use part of the increased amount of the reduced tax in the increased amount of the retirement allowance. If the reduced tax in this case is not used for other purposes, but for other long-term, general, all of the transport employees, it cannot be deemed as illegal use in violation of the relevant laws."

The amount of the reduced amount of the retirement allowance is not calculated based on the average wage at the time of payment to the transport employee, rather than on the average wage at the time of payment to the transport employee, and the average wage is calculated based on the average wage for the three-month period prior to the date of the retirement. Considering the circumstances affecting various factors in the average wage at the time of the retirement, such as the fact that the amount of the reduced amount of the retirement allowance is increased or decreased depending on the actual working hours, work performance, etc. of the individual transport employee, and that the employer’s burden may be reduced due to the payment of the reduced amount of the tax

In addition, the relevant laws and guidelines provide that the reduced tax amount of this case shall be used for the improvement of treatment and welfare of transport employees within six months from the expiration date of the reporting deadline for value-added tax or within one month.

However, the Plaintiffs are merely counted as having accumulated retirement allowances on the account of accounts, rather than having actually used as retirement insurance, retirement pension, etc. for transport employees. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the reduced tax amount was used for transport employees within the statutory period.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.