Imposition of additional tax imposed on each unpaid book of the preliminary and final return of value-added tax;

According to Article 22(3)1 and 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where a return is not made pursuant to Article 18(1) and (2) or Article 19(1) and (2) (a) of the Value-Added Tax Act, or the amount of tax paid by a return is short of the amount of tax payable by a return or exceeds the amount of tax refundable by a return, penalty tax of 10/100 on the larger of the amount of tax unpaid by a return shall be imposed. Thus, in cases where a non-return portion is not paid by a preliminary notice at the time of final determination and public notice, both of the penalty tax on incomplete payment by a preliminary

Article 18 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 22 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act

Hanju Co., Ltd.

Head of Ulsan District Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax (additional tax) for the first term portion of January 5, 1983 against the Plaintiff on January 5, 1983 and the imposition of KRW 9,323,971 (additional tax) for the second term portion of 1979 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Article 12(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 12(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “[t]he Plaintiff shall make and sell machinery salt using sea water and surplus water exchange method to the occupant enterprise in Ulsan Petroleum Chemical and Industrial Complex, and the Plaintiff shall make and make a final return of value-added tax for 10 percent and 2 percent of the total amount of value-added tax for 1979; “[t]he above machinery salt is manufactured by using a special method of construction; “[t]he above 1, 2, and 4-1, 10-1, 2, and 10-1, 10-1, 2, and 10-1, 2, and 10-2 shall be added to the above preliminary return; “[t]her, the Plaintiff shall file a final return of value-added tax amount pursuant to Article 28(1)13 of the Value-Added Tax Act; and “[t]her, the Defendant shall file a return of the above amount of tax pursuant to Article 17(3).

According to Article 22(3)1 and 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s attorney applied only 10/100 of the additional tax rate for the amount which is not declared for the first taxable year or which is not paid for the second taxable year. However, the Defendant imposed the additional tax for the amount which is not declared for the second taxable year and the amount which is not declared for the first taxable year, and thus, even if the amount which is not declared for the second taxable year is not paid for the final tax return, it constitutes only the case where the amount which is not declared for the second taxable year and the amount of which are not declared for the second taxable year, and the amount which is not declared for the second taxable year are not declared for the first taxable year, and it constitutes a tax amount which is not declared for the first taxable year and the amount which is not returned for the second taxable year, or the tax amount which is not returned for the second taxable year and the tax amount which is not paid for the second taxable year to the Plaintiff’s agent, under Article 28(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, it cannot be viewed that the tax amount is not paid for the second taxable year.

Secondly, the Plaintiff’s legal representative believed this machine salt as a value-added tax-free product, and reported the input tax amount as a tax-free product from February 1977 to February 1979, and paid or refunded the value-added tax. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s return and accepted the Plaintiff’s return, and at the same time, considered it as a tax-free product pursuant to the Plaintiff’s authoritative interpretation by the National Tax Service on November 7, 1979, and imposed the value-added tax on its underpaid tax amount, and at the same time, imposed the value-added tax on it, and at the same time there was no intention or negligence on the tax return, the Plaintiff alleged that the disposition of imposition of the additional tax was unlawful. However, only on November 7, 1979, the Plaintiff did not dispute the Plaintiff’s failure to pay or pay the additional tax on the sole basis that the Plaintiff was aware that the machine salt was a value-added tax-free product, or that the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s return through several taxation years.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of objection (additional tax) is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff as the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)