Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-59604 (2017.08.08)

Cho-2014-China-1485 (Law No. 29, 2014)

It is reasonable to view that the penalty tax on duty-free penalty should be imposed on the non-management insolvency itself.

In light of the purpose and legislative purpose of the tax-free oil system, it is reasonable to consider that the tax-free oil purchase card should be imposed on the poor management and the poor management.

Article 106-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2017-Nu 69696 Disposition of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax, etc.

XX Other than cooperatives

00. Head of tax office

on April 25, 2018

on October 1, 2018 04

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The disposition imposing additional tax as stated in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the modification or addition of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2, and as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

000000000000000000

○ 5 Up to 6 fishing vessels shall be amended to “fishing vessels”.

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts as follows. Article 106-2(1)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on Imposition of Additional Taxes") provides that "any defective management, such as failure to verify relevant documentary evidence, is limited to cases where the purchase card, etc. of duty-free petroleum is issued or documents are issued to persons other than farmers, fishermen, etc." The "cases where relevant documentary evidence are not verified" means any cases where the purchase card, etc. of duty-free petroleum is simply lost or erroneous in the process of administrative affairs or any defects are in the management thereof, not all cases where the former Ordinance on the Application of Value-Added Tax and Gift Tax for the Fishing, Livestock, and Fishing, Etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24369, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Special Provisions Concerning the Supply of Tax-Free Petroleum, etc."), and thus, the plaintiffs' provision on the supply of duty-free petroleum, which is an unlawful provision on the supply of duty-free petroleum and management thereof, should be considered."

B. Determination

For the purpose of supporting the economic stability of agricultural and fishing villages, the Special Cases Concerning Exemption of Traffic Tax, etc. were newly enacted on December 29, 200 by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Act No. 6297, Dec. 29, 200), and Article 106-2 of the same Act was newly established as the Special Cases Concerning the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended by Act No. 6538, Dec. 29, 2001. Article 27 of the former Special Cases Concerning the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 20638, Jun. 27, 2005) re-established the National Tax Service’s announcement on the procedures for the supply of duty-free oil and the procedures for filing an application for the refund of duty-free oil by the seller of duty-free petroleum, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs established the detailed guidelines for the supply and management of duty-free petroleum under Article 20 of the former Special Cases Concerning the Provision of Tax-Free Oil by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

In addition, as determined in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the provision of the additional tax in this case is intended to strengthen the sanctions against the association in order to thoroughly manage and supervise the issuance of the tax-free petroleum purchase card, which serves as the basis for operating the tax-free oil system, and eliminate the possession of the tax-free petroleum in advance. It is reasonable to view that the additional tax was imposed on the company to erroneously issue the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. due to the poor management regardless of whether

Furthermore, in the event of an application for the issuance of a tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. by a fisherman, the Plaintiffs, as the management agencies of tax-free petroleum, did not submit the relevant evidentiary documents under the provisions regarding whether the issuer is the person himself/herself or whether the actual operation was conducted, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. by formally verifying only the evidentiary documents submitted without properly verifying or inquiring about the fact, even though there were reasonable grounds to suspect whether the submitted evidentiary documents and whether the fishermen died through the verification and whether they were in a fishing vessel unable to work, etc.

[Plaintiff AA Fisheries Cooperatives failed to submit a power of attorney, a copy of delegated person's identification, and a family relation certificate, etc. The Plaintiff BB Fisheries Cooperatives submitted some delegations, identification cards, etc. from the preparatory document dated October 5, 2016, which was two years after the filing of the instant lawsuit. However, among the total of 291 cases for which the order for delivery of duty-free petroleum was issued during the period of departure from Korea, the submission of delegations is limited to 9 cases as well as 3 cases as evidence on the status under Article 23 subparagraph 3 of the Guidelines for Oil Supply Business. Meanwhile, in the case of CCC (see evidence 12-340 pages of evidence A), the authorized person is D and stated as captain, but the master's name is different from the delegated employee under subparagraph 12-341 of evidence No. 12-1, and the master's name is also stated as 3G head or 2GH head's 1,000 if he/she was delegated to G27.1.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs issued the tax-free petroleum purchase card, etc. erroneously due to the "management poor under the additional tax provision of this case" (it is difficult to see any different description even if the plaintiffs submitted additional documents). The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. The judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are dismissed in its entirety as there is no ground for appeal.