The imposition of illegally deducted traffic tax is lawful, but the imposition of penalty tax is illegal.

The imposition of principal tax on traffic tax and value-added tax, which are deducted from the forged and altered tax-free coophone, is legitimate, but there is a justifiable reason that it is not attributable to the failure to verify the authenticity of the tax, so the imposition of penalty tax against insincereful payment is illegal.

Article 17 of the Traffic Tax Act shall be deducted and refunded.

2012Guhap1802 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing traffic tax, etc.

1. AA 2. AA Energy Corporation

1. ○○ head of tax office; 2. ○ Metropolitan City Mayor;

November 7, 2013

December 5, 2013

(1) On September 5, 2011 and October 4, 2011, the head of Defendant ○○ Tax Office revokes the part of the traffic tax imposed on Plaintiff AA Co., Ltd., which exceeds the amount indicated in the principal tax column in the imposition of education tax, the amount exceeding the remaining tax amount in the imposition of education tax, and the amount exceeding the amount indicated in the item in the item in the item in the item in the item in the attached Table 1 of November 11, 201, of the imposition of value-added tax, as stated in the item in the item in the item in the item in the item in the item in the item in the item in the "value-added Tax," and "2." On September 8, 2011 and October 5, 2011, each of the remaining claims against the Defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff AA corporation and the Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office shall be borne by the head of the tax office of ○○○○ Tax Office for the remainder of 2/3. The part arising between the Plaintiff AA Energy Corporation and the Defendant ○○ Tax Office for the remainder of 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff AA corporation, respectively by the Seoul ○○ Tax Office for the remainder of 1/3.

Cheong-gu Office

"The imposition of value-added tax on September 5, 201 and October 4, 2011 on the part of the Plaintiff AA Co., Ltd., and the imposition of driving tax on November 11, 201 as stated in the column of traffic tax, education tax, and education tax on the attached Form 1, and on November 11, 201, the imposition of value-added tax as stated in the column of "the remaining tax on the attached Table of value-added tax" by the Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City Mayor on September 8, 201 and October 5, 2011, the imposition of driving tax on Plaintiff AA Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd. shall be revoked."

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. Plaintiff AAA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AA”) is a company that has engaged in petroleum refining business, etc. before dividing the portion of petroleum refining business as seen below. Plaintiff AAA Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AA Energy”) imposed traffic tax, education tax, value-added tax, and driving tax on Plaintiff AA Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AA Energy Co., Ltd.”) on July 2007, which was established by dividing the portion of petroleum refining business from Plaintiff AAA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AA Energy Co., Ltd. at the time of division”) on November 1, 2011, the portion of petroleum refining business was divided and established. Plaintiff AA Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AA”) after division with Plaintiff AA had engaged in the same petroleum refining business, and Plaintiff AAA Energy Co., Ltd. was not divided into the Plaintiff’s respective traffic tax-free, education tax-added tax-free, value-added tax-added tax-added tax-free products, and thus, Plaintiff A’s et al.

Article 16(3) of the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea provides that USFA shall be exempted from taxes, such as petroleum products, on the goods, etc. procured by the USFS within the Republic of Korea, including authorized entities, and Article 13(1)2 of the former Traffic Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8138 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Traffic Tax Act") provides that the traffic tax shall be exempted if the oil supplied to foreign forces in Korea has already been paid by the head of the competent tax office for the oil supplied to the foreign forces in Korea, and Article 17(2)1 of the same Act provides that the traffic tax shall be exempted if the oil supplied to the foreign forces in Korea has already been paid by the agencies, such as the agencies of the USFS in order to supply the oil at the prices of the oil supplied to the gas station or the gas station (hereinafter referred to as "the supply entity").

(c) Detection of the distribution of forged duty-free coophones;

"1) On March 201, 201, the ○○ Police Agency: (a) issued the duty-free coophone to a oil refining company; (b) sold oil equivalent to the adjusted amount of traffic tax, etc. to others by selling it to others; (c) discovered that the oil sold to others was subject to traffic tax-free coophone from the tax office as above (hereinafter referred to as "non-free coophone distribution"); (d) Plaintiff AAAAA had no traffic tax-free coophone from August 2006 to December 2, 2009; and (e) supplied the said coophone to a oil refining company for about ten (107,00 liters); and (e) supplied the said coophone to the said office of tax office with no traffic tax credits from August 2006 to 17, 207; and (e) discovered that Plaintiff AAAA had no traffic tax credits from the said office of tax exemption coophone.

D. The Defendants’ imposition disposition and the plaintiffs’ appeal procedure

1) Defendant 2: (a) the head of ○○○○○○ Tax Office did not satisfy the requirements of traffic tax exemption; (b) was unjustly entitled to traffic tax exemption and refund; and (c) filed an appeal against the Plaintiff AA on the grounds that there was an error or omission in the details of the assessment, such as the Plaintiff’s return of traffic tax; (d) Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act; and (e) Article 10 of the former Education Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007); and (e) Article 21(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the “former Value-Added Tax Act”); (e) the Plaintiffs did not file an appeal against the Plaintiff’s correction of the amount of the traffic tax; (e) the amount of the traffic tax imposed; and (e) the amount of the additional tax imposed; and (e) the Plaintiff 16) the former Tax Tribunal’s.

"3) According to the above decision of the Tax Tribunal, the defendants corrected that the amount of reduction by the Tax Tribunal of Attached Forms 1 and 2 was excluded from additional taxes for failure to file a return equivalent to the amount stated in the column for "the amount of reduction by the Tax Tribunal of Attached Table 1 and 2" (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case")", "the portion corresponding to "amount of remaining taxes for failure to file a return after correction of reduction" (the grounds for recognition" is "each disposition of this case")," "No dispute exists, evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul, evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, 8, Eul, or evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that each of the dispositions of this case in this case should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act, which is cited by the Defendants as the basis provisions for each disposition of the instant case, cannot be a general correction and determination provision, and the said provision merely provides that the tax authority may correct the tax liability finalized due to a taxpayer’s filing of tax base return as a justifiable tax base. It cannot be a ground for presumption of the amount of tax refund for traffic tax refunded by the tax authority upon filing an application for refund tax refund by the taxpayer, and there is no other provision for presumption of the amount of tax refund.

(2) Even if it is possible to estimate the tax amount to be refunded pursuant to Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act, there is no reason to believe that the plaintiffs in the trade practice of US-U.S. duty-free petroleum is authentic and that there is no reason to confirm the transaction relationship with the gas station supplier. Thus, the plaintiffs' traffic tax base return does not constitute "no error or omission under Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act", and 3) the plaintiffs do not have any reason for the illegal distribution of the tax-free petroleum as a bona fide trader, and there is no benefit therefrom, and even though the profit is attributed to the persons who forged or altered the tax-free petroleum, it is contrary to the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitutional Act to estimate the traffic tax refund, etc. to the formal taxpayer.

4) The Plaintiffs were not aware of the forgery or alteration of tax-free coophones, and there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiff. In light of the legal principle that the bona fide parties to the transaction do not receive unfavorable disposition in relation to the imposition of value-added tax deduction, application of zero tax rate, etc., the imposition of value-added tax

5) Since the Plaintiffs cannot be found to have any justifiable reason for failure to perform their duties, the portion of penalty tax for insincereful payment during the instant disposition is the same under the above Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The judgment is as shown in the attached Table 4-related Acts and subordinate statutes.

1) As to the assertion that there is no ground for disposition

Article 7 of the former Traffic Tax Act provides that a taxpayer shall submit to the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the manufacturing place by the end of the following month a return stating the quantity and price of the goods taken out from the manufacturing place each month, the amount of tax to be deducted, the amount of tax to be deducted, the amount of tax to be refunded, the amount of tax to be paid, and the amount of tax to be paid, and Article 9(1) of the same Act provides that the head of a tax office or customs office shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of tax if the return is not filed or the return is erroneously or omitted. According to Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act, Article 9 of the former Traffic Tax Act does not limit the scope of the amount of tax to the amount of tax to the amount of tax to the tax base and the amount of tax to which the return is made under Article 7 of the former Traffic Tax Act is not limited to the cases where there is an error or error in the details of the return under Article 7 of the latter Traffic Tax Act, and thus, the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the tax office can separately determine the refund tax base and the tax amount to be refunded.

Article 17(2) and (5) of the former Traffic Tax Act, and Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Traffic Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19897, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Traffic Tax Act") provide that a person who intends to obtain deduction or refund shall submit a certificate of supply to foreign military forces in Korea with the report under Article 7 of the former Traffic Tax Act (Article 17(5) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 24(1) and (2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Traffic Tax Act, which provides that the Plaintiffs shall deduct the amount of tax already paid from the amount of tax if the applicants have to pay the amount in the future (see Article 24(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Traffic Tax Act). Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs’ application for exemption or exemption of traffic tax is not an error in the procedures for the imposition of traffic tax under the Traffic Tax Act and the details of the application for exemption or exemption of tax base.

A) The former Traffic Tax Act provides that a person who manufactures and takes out gasoline, diesel and alternative oil similar thereto shall be liable to pay traffic tax (Article 2). Article 3 provides that a person liable to pay traffic tax shall file a return on the quantity, price, and amount of tax (including refund tax) of the goods taken out of a manufacturing place each month (Article 7). Article 7 provides that where taxable goods fall under export, supply to the Republic of Korea outside the Republic of Korea, use of foreign diplomatic missions, etc., traffic tax shall be exempted (Articles 13 through 15). Accordingly, in order to reduce and exempt traffic tax, the person liable to pay traffic tax shall satisfy the above requirements, and the person liable to pay traffic tax shall be entitled to refund the traffic tax already paid after filing an application for refund of the traffic tax

B) However, although the traffic tax refunded by the Plaintiffs in this case was not supplied to USFK, it is not subject to traffic tax refund. Accordingly, the fact that the Defendants issued the instant disposition to rectify the traffic tax, etc. that was refunded by the Defendants is as seen earlier. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions is a set of traffic tax, etc. that the Plaintiffs should have originally paid for oil supplied to the agencies or gas stations, and thus, cannot be said to violate the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

4) As to the assertion that the imposition of value-added tax is illegal because the plaintiffs are bona fide parties.

(A) Article 13 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the price for the goods shall be the base of value-added tax where the goods are paid in money. Thus, in the case where traffic tax is to be paid because it does not meet the requirements for traffic tax exemption under the Traffic Tax Act, all the money received for the goods that reflect the traffic tax is the base of value-added tax. Even if the plaintiffs in this case supplied oil to agents, gas stations, etc. after supplying oil as the dutiable value and received the corresponding traffic tax after calculating the taxable value, so long as the basis for settlement has ceased to exist due to the fact that coophone was forged or altered, the assessment of value-added tax should be based on the dutiable value at the time of the oil supply. As seen earlier, if the plaintiffs filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax with the tax office by excluding the amount that was adjusted to agents, gas stations, etc. on the basis of the tax base of zero tax exemption, it is unlawful for the plaintiffs to believe that the aforementioned tax base of value-added tax exemption is unlawful or unlawful for the counter-party to the transaction.

5) As to the allegation that the imposition of penalty is illegal

A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be reasonably present or to expect the performance of his/her obligations to the party concerned, etc., if there are justifiable grounds that make it unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of such obligations, such as where there are circumstances that make it unreasonable for him/her to expect the performance of his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 1

B) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs’ failure to report and pay traffic tax and value-added tax, etc. is not attributable to the obligation to report and pay the traffic tax, etc., by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the witness’s stuff testimony.

(1) It is easy for the instant duty-free coophone to be delivered in writing without the function of preventing the above and alteration, and it is difficult for the USF to verify whether the Plaintiffs satisfied the duty-free coophones and petroleum purchase notification to the Plaintiffs or the tax authorities because they did not deliver a prior notification of purchase of petroleum, etc., and it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to force the Plaintiffs to issue a prior notification of purchase of petroleum to USF. As such, it seems that the instant duty-free coophones were not provided with a system to prevent the illegal distribution at the time of the illegal distribution.

(2) In such circumstances, the Plaintiffs merely submitted coophones to the tax office and settled the amount of tax already refunded to the agency and the gas station, etc. In addition, the Plaintiffs’ share in the manufacture and supply of petroleum products was very small, and the profits from the refund of traffic tax, etc. are not ultimately attributable to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it was difficult to expect the Plaintiffs to verify whether the coophones were forged or altered.

(3) The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that the imposition of penalty taxes against nonperformance on the grounds that the Plaintiffs were unable to prove the forgery or alteration of the duty-free coophones due to justifiable grounds. However, since the penalty taxes against nonperformance on the duty of care are administrative sanctions such as penalty taxes against nonperformance on the duty of care, there is no reasonable ground to treat both parties in the instant case differently.

C) Therefore, it is illegal to impose penalty tax against the plaintiffs in good faith, such as traffic tax and value added tax, and the plaintiffs' assertion on this is with merit.

6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the imposition of the principal tax, such as traffic tax, and value-added tax, among each of the dispositions in this case is lawful, and the imposition of the penalty tax is unlawful. Therefore, the part of the disposition that the head of ○○○ Tax Office exceeds the amount of the principal tax out of the amount of each remaining tax as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to the Plaintiff AA, and the part that exceeds the amount of the principal tax out of the amount of the remaining tax as stated in the separate sheet No. 2 attached to the Plaintiff AA Energy by the Defendant ○○ City Mayor should be revoked as it is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.