Exclusion Period

The instant disposition of this case is deemed unlawful after the tax payment obligation has already been extinguished.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On November 16, 1988, the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 121,275,330 won against the plaintiff on November 16, 198 shall be revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

. The above disposal of raw materials and sale price of Gap 1, Eul 1 and 4 (the same shall apply 3. 5), Eul 9-1 and 10-2 (the marking and contents of accounts) and Eul 11-2 (17 marks and contents of accounts), Eul 1-2 (the value-added tax revision statement for 83 years) and Eul 2. The above disposal of the raw materials and sale price of the 19-7 raw materials and the above disposal of the 19-7 raw materials and sale price of the 19-7 raw materials and the above disposal of the 17-7 raw materials and sale price of the 19-7 raw materials and the above disposal of the 19-7 raw materials and sale price of the 19-7 raw materials and the above disposal of the 19-7 raw materials and sale price of the 19-7 raw materials and the above disposal of the 19-7 raw materials and the above disposal of the 17-year raw materials and sale price of the 18-year raw materials and sale.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law. The plaintiff first asserts that the above reorganization company's provision of raw materials to the non-party company, who is a commercial processor, for the processing of a contract, cannot be deemed to be a supply of goods subject to the imposition of value-added tax. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the above provision of raw materials constitutes the supply of goods is illegal. Second, even if the above provision of raw materials constitutes the supply of goods, the above disposition of this case by the above reorganization company's imposition of value-added tax is unlawful even though it had already expired

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above provision of raw materials to Nonparty 1 and the above provision of raw materials for processing can not be deemed to be a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and even if a contractor uses or consumes raw materials so provided, it cannot be deemed as a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, so the above provision of raw materials cannot be deemed to be a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, as seen above, if the above provision of raw materials constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, because the above provision of raw materials constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax at will, it is unnecessary to examine the remainder of the taxation. However, according to Article 26 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the above provision of raw materials for processing constitutes a supply of goods subject to value-added tax for the said period after the expiration of the above taxation period, the above provision of raw materials for processing cannot be deemed to be a supply of goods subject to value-added tax for the said period from the date of expiration of the taxation period under Article 16-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.