Incheon District Court-2014-Gu 2268 ( June 18, 2015)

The amount equivalent to the reduced tax amount, interest, and additional tax shall also be collected for transport employees after the payment deadline of the tax amount to reduce the taxi.

(1) The interpretation of the tax law is interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, and the amendment is made after the deadline for the payment of the amount of taxi reduction tax, and is in accordance with the basic principles of the tax special provisions, which can recover the amount of the tax from a person who fails to meet the initial requirements for the reduction after the deadline for the payment of the tax amount

Reduction of the amount of value-added tax paid by a regular taxi transportation business entity under Article 106-7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2015Nu4989 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

OOOsi Stock Company

OO Head of the tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap32268 Decided June 18, 2015

December 22, 2015

January 12, 2016

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation regarding the imposition of value-added tax on April 16, 2013 against the Plaintiff is amended as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 126,497,70 (including additional tax) of value-added tax of KRW 145,03,690 (including additional tax) for April 16, 2011 against the Plaintiff, which exceeds KRW 126,497,70 (including additional tax) and the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation in excess of KRW 62,679,463 (including additional tax) for the imposition disposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,239,360 for the second year of 2011. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s appeal as to the claim for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 25,99,940 (including additional tax) in March 18, 2010 against the Plaintiff as of March 18, 2013 is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes and nine of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder one by the Defendant respectively.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 25,99,940 (including additional tax) for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 25,99,940 (including additional tax) for the year 2010 on March 18, 2013 is revoked, and each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 145,003,690 (including additional tax) for the year 2013 on April 16, 2013, and value-added tax of KRW 72,239,360 (including additional tax) for the second period of value-added tax for the year 201

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition or modification of the following Paragraph (2). Thus, the court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance: 3. The contents to be added to or modified in the item "whether the second disposition is lawful"

A. A. Paragraph (2) of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 51,650,603 out of the amount of value-added tax reduced for the first term portion in 201, and KRW 447,693 out of the amount of value-added tax reduced for the second term portion in 2011 to ordinary taxi drivers. The Defendant did not include the said money in the amount of execution, but did not impose the second disposition, and the said disposition is unlawful.

B. 'C. Judgment' '1) The fourth sentence of the "Decision on the Interpretation of the Provisions of this case" (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu32699 decided July 22, 2010) is added to the end of the fourth sentence (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu32699 decided July 22, 201) as follows:

In other words, the Supreme Court's precedent sees "the existence of justifiable grounds" although there is no express provision.

The Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu32699 Decided July 22, 2010 also held that the case is subject to collection even if the business operator used the reduced value-added tax directly for the transport employee within six months as stipulated in the Restriction of Special Taxation Act that was enforced at the time, it constitutes the subject of collection. However, it is merely the purport that the business operator cannot collect the reduced value-added tax if there is any justifiable reason.

C.(2) The items of the “determinations as to whether there is a reduced value-added tax amount paid by the Plaintiff during the first and second taxable periods of 2011” are as follows:

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the burden of proof of non-taxation requirements, exemption requirements, deduction requirements, etc. is, in principle, imposed on a taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du7830, Oct. 23, 2008; 2007Du4049, Jul. 9, 2009); 4; 7, B, 9, and 10 evidence (including provisional number) indicate that the payment date or year for individual workers is not properly stated in the first half year of 2011; rather, it stated that the notice should be paid in September 201, and that the amount of value-added tax reductions for the second half year of 201 is not payable until May 24, 2012; thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no reason to acknowledge that the amount of value-added tax has been additionally paid to each employee within the period other than the payment period for the first year of 2011.

(d) add paragraphs (3) and (4) to the end, as follows:

3) Determination as to whether the instant 2 disposition can be deemed unlawful on the ground that the OO market did not notify the Defendant of the basis for calculation of the amount of additional collection

According to Article 106-7 (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the plaintiff alleged that the O market notified the defendant of the amount to be collected as well as the amount to be collected as a penalty against the defendant, but the O market notified only the amount to be collected as a penalty to the defendant. However, since there is no ground to interpret the above provision as alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit (On the other hand, according to each of the evidence Nos. 2 and Nos. 10 and 11, it seems that the plaintiff had already known the basis for calculating the amount of penalty

4) Defendant’s ex officio rectification of reduction

Meanwhile, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 14 and 15 (including additional numbers) and the entire pleadings, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion that the penalty tax was imposed excessively among the instant dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 pending trial on December 2, 2015, and it is recognized that the instant disposition Nos. 1 and 2 was corrected and that the Plaintiff was notified of the reduction. As such, among the instant dispositions No. 2, the part seeking revocation of the reduced portion among the instant dispositions No. 2, the part seeking revocation of the reduced portion is a non-existent administrative disposition or a dispute over the validity of past legal relations, and thus, is unlawful as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the part of the disposition of this case 1 and the part of the disposition of this case 2, which the defendant requested revocation of reduction ex officio, shall be dismissed, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without any grounds. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions with respect to the two dispositions of this case is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal concerning the first disposition of this case shall be dismissed, and the part concerning the second disposition of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as per the disposition. However, in light of the fact that the defendant's revocation ex officio in relation to the second disposition of this case was revealed to have been imposed excessive additional tax as alleged by the plaintiff, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench and Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 9