(a) In cases of failure to file a preliminary return of value-added tax, failure to file a return on the unpaid and final return, and unpaid taxes, penalty taxes to be imposed;

B. Whether the taxpayer's intention or negligence requires the imposition of additional tax (negative)

A. The purport that Article 22(3) proviso of the Value-Added Tax Act applies simultaneously to subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 22(3) is that the case refers to the preliminary return and the scheduled return under Article 18, the final return and the final return under Article 19, and the case at the same time the payment are not to refer to the case where the preliminary return under Article 18 or the payment are made and the final return and the payment under Article 19 are made simultaneously. Therefore, the penalty tax is not imposed only once by the first return or the payment of the value-added tax, but also by the first return or the payment of the value-added tax.

B. In tax-related Acts, additional taxes are imposed on taxpayers in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, so the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered.

(a)Articles 18, 19, 22 and 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Han-ju Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Ulsan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu299 delivered on April 3, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 18 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a business operator shall report to the Government the tax base and amount to be paid or to be refunded for each preliminary return period within 25 days after the end of the period set for each preliminary return (paragraph (1)) and that the amount to be paid for the said preliminary return period shall be paid to the Government (the scheduled payment under paragraph (2)) along with such preliminary return, within 25 days after the end of the said taxable period (the final return under paragraph (1)) and Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the business operator shall make the tax base and tax amount to be paid or refundable for each taxable period and the amount to be paid for the said taxable period to the Government (the final return under paragraph (2)) and Article 22 (3) provides that the business operator shall, where he falls under any of the following subparagraphs, either the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the tax amount not paid or deducted from the refundable tax amount: Provided, That where subparagraphs 1 and 2 apply at the same time, the same amount as provided for subparagraphs 1 and 2:

1. Where the declared tax amount falls short of the payable tax amount to be declared, or the refundable tax amount to be declared exceeds the refundable tax amount to be declared, as provided in Article 18 (1) or 19 (1); and

The purport of the proviso of Article 22 (3) 1 and 2 at the same time is that the preliminary return and the final return and the payment under Article 19 at the same time of the scheduled payment under Article 18 is interpreted as not only where the preliminary return and the payment under Article 18 are made, but also where the final return and the payment under Article 19 are made at the same time. Therefore, it is interpreted that the penalty tax should be paid at each time when the preliminary return and the payment are not made or the final return and the payment are not made at the same time. The theory argues that the preliminary return and the payment under Article 18 and the final return under Article 19 are to be made at the same time if the unpaid portion and the unpaid portion are applicable at the same time, the penalty tax shall be imposed at one time only through the filing of the preliminary return and the final return under Article 18 and the final return under Article 19 are separately prescribed, and the payment of the penalty tax may not be made independently in the case of the unpaid portion and the unpaid portion, and thus, the final return and the tax payment cannot be made independently.

2. In light of the records, following the following: (a) evidence No. 8-1 and the final return form No. 10, under which the input tax amount is not deducted under paragraph (26) of the input tax column; (b) there is a return stating the input tax amount not to be deducted at the time of the preliminary return; (c) thus, the provision that the amount deducted as the input tax amount at the time of the preliminary return may be stated and correct the erroneous return at the time of the preliminary return; and (d) the provision that the details already reported at the preliminary return are excluded in the final return under Article 65(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act that the legitimate return at the preliminary return does not require a duplicate return at the time of the final return

3. In tax-related Acts, penalty taxes are imposed on taxpayers in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of the tax claim, so this is that the taxpayer's intentional negligence is not considered, and thus, the imposition of penalty taxes is unreasonable because there is no negligence on the plaintiff.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)