Cases where interpretation by analogy or retroactive application of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act is denied.

Even if it is interpreted as not subject to taxation due to the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the former Goods Act after the tax assessment, the goods tax law is one of the technical corporate tax laws governed by the no taxation without law, and it is necessary to strictly interpret and apply the same in interpreting and applying the same. Thus, the expanded interpretation cannot be made without permission. Thus, the revised legislation or the expanded interpretation of the general provision cannot be made retroactively after the above disposition.

Enforcement Decree of the Commodity Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 5684) Article 1

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu120 delivered on April 9, 1974

Plaintiff

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

(1) The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(2) Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

(1) The disposition imposing KRW 561,975 on the Plaintiff as of December 28, 1971 at any time in 1971 that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 561,975 shall be revoked.

(2) Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(1) As of December 28, 1971, the Defendant imposed an amount of KRW 561,975 on the Plaintiff at any time in 1971. The Plaintiff’s imposition on the Plaintiff of KRW 561,975. The Plaintiff considered that the Plaintiff caused a chemical reaction between the Plaintiff’s input of the Amhyphryl Metlcryl Rate, which is a chemical medicine for which the goods were imposed, into a scryl rate, and made the Plaintiff change into the scrym by making the scrym. by causing a chemical reaction of the scryl (A.B. N.B.N. Aziobissynitrile, etc.) by inserting the goods into the scryl rate, which is a chemical medicine for which the goods were imposed. The Defendant considered that the intermediate oil in the condition of “cryl” generated in the process of manufacturing the said scryl board as the parties to the instant disposition under Article 413 subparag. 41, and subparagraph 41, supra.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that the above remains remains remains not "the balance", but since it constitutes an intermediate chemical reaction generated in the manufacturing process of a specific product, i.e., "in the case of using it as it is in the pertinent manufacturing process" as an intermediate chemical reaction under Article 1, Class 1, Class 3, Item 2, Item 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties on Goods, the plaintiff claims that the goods cannot be imposed on the material. Thus, whether the fluid in the above 's 's liquid' is "the balance" or "the chemical chemical substance" or "the chemical substance" is "the balance" or "the chemical substance" or "the chemical substance" shall not be accepted, according to each of the above evidences Nos. 5, evidence No. 6, and 1, 2, 2, 3, and 3, Item 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties on Goods. Thus, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion that the above 's 's 's liquid compound' is a solid compound produced by chemical action of the above '.

(3) In addition, the plaintiff's legislative intent with respect to chemical substance of Category 1, Class 3, Class 2, Item 7 of the above Table 1, although it is "salky's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's 2, Item 7 of the above Table 1, Item 3, Item 2, Item 4 of the Table 1, Item 2 of the above Enforcement Decree, and even before December 30, 1971 newly established the proviso, if this walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's walk's 2, wel's walk's g.

(4) If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)