ZETex Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rated, Attorneys Lee Do-won et al., Counsel for the defendant

(2) The head of Si/Gun/Gu shall notify the head of Si/Gun/Gu.

January 12, 2012

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Guhap924 Decided June 9, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

On April 11, 2008 and August 13, 2008, the imposition of the traffic tax on the Plaintiff shall be revoked in full by the Defendant, 6,298,662,810 won in total, 790,313,070 won in total, and 33,596,180 won in special consumption tax.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

○ The Plaintiff, as a oil refining company selling petroleum products after the fixed limit, has reported and paid the traffic tax, education tax, and special consumption tax on the supply of petroleum to the Defendant.

○ The Plaintiff, through its agency, re-written confirmation of the supply of duty-free petroleum (oil 15,126 pact amount; hereinafter referred to as “instant supply confirmation”) in the name of the president of the 18 regional agricultural cooperatives and the head of the 18 regional agricultural cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as “the supply confirmation”) from August 2003 to May 207, 2007, which was submitted by 6 gas stations, including ○○○ Petroleum gas station in ○○, Gangwon-do (hereinafter omitted) and ○○ Petroleum gas station (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Petroleum”). In the process, the Plaintiff was refunded from the Defendant the traffic tax, education tax, special consumption tax already paid for the oil supply stated in the supply confirmation of this case.

However, the Board of Audit and Inspection’s special audit on the operational status of the tax-free petroleum supply system, which took place between May 2007 and September 2007, revealed that ○○ Petroleum et al. received tax-free oil from an agency by lowering the quantity of the tax-free petroleum actually supplied to farmers by forging and altering the instant supply certificate, and then sold it for purposes other than agriculture, thereby taking enormous unjust profits.

○ The Defendant’s imposition of penalties and the Plaintiff’s appeal process are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 행위자 행위일자 내용 피고 처분 및 처분 사유 비고 피고 2008. 4. 11. 교통세 등경정(주 2) 근거법규 : 구 교통·에너지·환경세법(2007. 12. 31. 법률 제8829호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘교통세법’이라 한다) 제9조(주 3) 처분 내용은 별지2. 기재와 같다 2008. 8. 13.(주 1) 내용 : 원고에게 환급해 준 교통세는 위 조항 소정의 오류 또는 탈루가 있다 원고 2008. 7. 9.(주 4) 조세심판원에 심판청구 ？ ？ 조세심판원 2009. 12. 15. 일부경정결정 신고불성실 가산세 : 원고의 청구 인용 2009. 12. 18. 원고에게 결정문 송달됨 나머지: 기각(그 사유는 위 피고의 결정과 같다) 원고 2010. 3. 16. 행정소송제기 대상 : 위 2008. 4. 11. 및 2008. 8. 13.자 부과처분 중 신고불성실가산세 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분(그 내용은 별지 3. 기재 부과처분 내역과 같으며, 이하 ‘이 사건 각 처분’이라 한다)

Note 1) August 13, 2008

2) Revision of traffic tax, etc.

3) Article 9

Note 4) July 9, 2008

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

Although the Defendant’s grounds for each disposition of this case are the correction of tax base pursuant to Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act, Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act only provides that the tax authority may correct the tax base on the premise that the tax liability becomes final and conclusive due to the act of taxpayer’s “declaration of tax base.” However, the Plaintiff’s refund of the traffic tax of this case by the Defendant is effective against the Plaintiff’s “application for refund amount” pursuant to the Defendant’s “determination of refund amount,” and thus, in order to collect the amount of refundable tax again, there must be separate grounds for collection in law. However, without any legal basis, each disposition of this case, which the Defendant corrected the amount of refundable tax based on Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act, which was only the correction

(B) Violation of the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution

In addition, the Plaintiff did not have any duty to verify the forgery or alteration of the supply certificate of this case, and there was no method to verify the forgery or alteration, and thus, there was no reason for the illegal distribution of the agricultural exempted oil. However, even though there was no reason for the illegal distribution of the agricultural exempted oil, the Defendant’s each disposition of this case was unlawful against the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution, taking into account only the taxation convenience that the Defendant ought to recover the

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) there are grounds for the disposition

As traffic tax is a tax by tax return, a taxpayer shall submit a monthly tax base return along with an application for traffic tax refund pursuant to Article 7 of the Traffic Tax Act, and thereby, the tax base and tax amount to be paid by the taxpayer during the month are determined as the amount obtained by subtracting the amount of refundable tax, etc. from the calculated tax amount, the tax authority need not separately verify and determine whether the taxpayer’s application for refund of traffic tax satisfies the requirements for refund. If the error or omission was verified in the details of the tax base and tax amount of the taxpayer’s application for refund of traffic tax, and the tax authority may rectify the amount of refundable tax which was erroneously reported pursuant to Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act, such as tax by other tax return method regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s intentional or negligent involvement, regardless of whether the tax base and tax amount were paid by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions are legitimate and lawful since the tax amount

(B) It does not contravene the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution.

Each disposition of this case does not go against the principle of self-responsibility because it corrected the relevant tax amount due to the error reported by the Plaintiff. In addition, since the Plaintiff was a person liable to pay the traffic tax of this case where a large amount of tax-free oil was supplied to ○○ Petroleum, etc. through the Plaintiff’s agent, the Plaintiff should have verified whether the supply certificate of this case was normally issued by the relevant agricultural cooperative, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to faithfully perform such duty of care and caused error or omission in the details of the Plaintiff’s refund tax amount, which eventually led to the Plaintiff’s monopoly position to exercise a huge influence on the gas station, and the Plaintiff took unfair advantage of the Plaintiff’s transaction with ○○ Petroleum without paying the refundable tax amount in cash. In light of the fact that each disposition of this case collected the tax amount to the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to go against the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution.

B. Relevant statutes

4. Attached Form 4.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Operational process of a tax-free oil system for agriculture

For the purpose of supporting the economic stability of agricultural and fishing villages, the special provisions for exemption of traffic tax, etc. have been newly established and amended several times by the amendment of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6297 of Dec. 29, 2000), and Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Special Provisions for Exemption”), which are the Presidential Decree, enacted the "Special Provisions for Exemption of Value-Added Tax and Tax Exemption, etc. (hereinafter “Special Provisions for Exemption”), and Article 27 of the Special Provisions for Exemption of Special Cases for Tax Exemption again delegates detailed matters such as the procedures for the supply of duty-free oil and the procedures for the issuance of duty-free certificates, etc. to the National Tax Service, and accordingly, the National Tax Service Regulations for the procedures for the provision of duty-free oil and the procedures for the issuance of tax-free certificates were enacted.

In addition, the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry designated as a supervisory agency of the agricultural tax-free petroleum system in accordance with the special provisions on the above-mentioned tax-free petroleum has been operating the agricultural tax-free petroleum system by setting up the internal rules of the "Rules for the Supply of Agricultural Products for Agricultural Machinery", and the agricultural cooperatives designated as the agency for managing the agricultural industry-free petroleum.

(2) Procedures for issuing certificates of supply of duty-free petroleum

Before computerization of the tax-free petroleum management system at the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, the Korean Agricultural Cooperatives issued a certificate of supply to the local agricultural cooperatives that issued the tax-free petroleum purchase right after receiving the tax-free petroleum purchase right from farmers in the gas station and supplying the tax-free petroleum.

In addition, after computerization of the tax-free petroleum management system on January 1, 2002, if local agricultural cooperatives choose the right to purchase tax-free petroleum granted to farmers by computer from local agricultural cooperatives, the quantity and the amount of supply are automatically aggregated and serial numbers are automatically assigned to prevent double publication.

(3) Illegal circulation of duty-free oil due to the forgery or alteration of the instant supply certificate and the audit results by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

According to the above relevant laws and regulations, it was revealed that the special audit results of the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted by the Korea Audit and Inspection on the supply of the agricultural exempted oil, such as the supply procedure of the agricultural exempted oil, were unlawfully distributed by means of forgery or alteration of the certificate of the supply of the instant agricultural exempted oil. In this regard, the request for the disposition of the audit results of the Board of Audit and Inspection published around May 2008, the measures following the illegal distribution of agricultural exempted oil are stated as follows:

In cases where traffic tax, etc. is reduced or exempted by unlawful means, such as forging a certificate of supply of duty-free petroleum, the Minister of Strategy and Finance, contained in the main sentence of the same Article, has prescribed the provision of Article 106 of the Special Act on the Regulation of Specific Taxation so that a seller of duty-free oil, such as gas stations, may impose and collect the reduced or exempted tax and additional tax. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall take measures to determine the reduced or exempted tax amount in accordance with the relevant tax law on the quantity which forged the certificate of supply of duty-free petroleum at the above 14 gas stations, and shall prepare a plan to collect the traffic tax, etc. along with appropriate measures, if it is found that the supply difference between the supply amount of duty-free petroleum submitted at the relevant tax office and the supply amount of duty-free petroleum kept by the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation is not less than 5,000 liters, after confirming the forgery of the certificate

(4) The amendment process of the statute

In accordance with the special audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection, Article 106-2 (2) of the Act on the Special Audit and Inspection (amended on December 31, 2007) provides that a petroleum retailer, such as a gas station, shall be permitted to file an application for refund of duty-free oil through the oil station. Article 106-2 (12) of the Act on the Special Audit and Inspection (amended on December 26, 2008), newly established on December 26, 2008, where a petroleum retailer, such as a gas station, distributes unlawfully exempted oil, he/she shall additionally collect traffic tax, etc. from a petroleum retailer.

(5) Status of the receipt of the Plaintiff’s certificate of tax-free petroleum supply

The plaintiff, an agent, submitted to the defendant a certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum in the name of the head of Gagu Agricultural Cooperatives, Gagu, and 18 local agricultural cooperatives, from August 2003 to May 207, 207, 231, which was received from the plaintiff's office, Gangwon branch, Gangwon-do branch, Kajin-si, a stock company, and ○○ Petroleum, etc., and received through ○○ Petroleum, etc., and received a traffic tax for gasoline 95, indoor light oil, 127, light oil, transit 15,276, and 15,498, such as gasoline 62, light oil, 117, and 14,947, 15,126, 126, such as crude oil supply certificate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 16-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether a disposition-founded statute exists

1) Whether Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act is applied

① Since the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions based on Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act, Article 10(1) of the former Education Tax Act, and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, the Defendant’s legal relationship that collects traffic tax deducted or refunded on the same ground as the instant case, whether Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act, Article 10(1) of the former Education Tax Act, and Article 11(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act can be applied (5 weeks).

② First of all, Article 7(1) 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 a return stating the quantity and price of the goods taken out from the manufacturing place each month, calculated tax amount, tax without tax payment, deducted tax amount, refunded tax amount, tax amount, etc. by the end of the following month.” Article 9(1) of the same Act provides that “where a taxpayer fails to submit a return under Article 7, or there is an error or omission in the details of the return, the head of the competent tax office or customs office shall determine or correct the tax base and tax amount.” Under the principle of no taxation without law, interpretation of the tax law must be interpreted in accordance with the statutory text, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be allowed to determine or analogically interpret the tax amount without tax payment without tax payment without tax payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4438, Feb. 15, 208; Article 7(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act provides that a return without tax amount without tax payment without tax amount without tax payment without tax amount without tax payment without tax amount without tax amount without tax payment.

③ To interpret “tax base and tax amount” under Article 9(1) of the Traffic Tax Act as “tax base based on the tax base” is not only inconsistent with the language and text of the aforementioned provision, but also, since the tax amount to be actually paid is calculated by subtracting each item of deduction, such as unpaid tax, exempted tax, deducted tax amount, and refunded tax amount, from the calculated tax amount calculated by applying the tax rate to the tax base, it cannot be interpreted as limited to the amount of tax that can be corrected based on the tax base. If construing “tax amount based on the tax base” as only means the amount of tax payable as well as the amount of tax unpaid, exempted tax, and deducted tax amount, barring any special provision that can correct the error, it would result in an unreasonable outcome that makes it impossible for the taxpayer to correct the error, even if the taxpayer files a false return on the amount of exempted tax or deducted tax amount intentionally or by gross negligence. Therefore, it is inappropriate to limit the “tax base and tax amount” under Article 9(1) of the Traffic Tax Act to “tax amount based on the tax base.”

④ In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the procedure of refund of traffic tax requires a separate decision by the tax authority in addition to the application for refund by the taxpayer, so it is irrelevant to the report of tax base under Article 7 of the Traffic Tax Act and the determination of the liability for tax payment accordingly. Therefore, it cannot be subject to a decision of correction under Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act, and there should be separate provisions in the Act in order to collect the refund of traffic tax.

Therefore, the so-called "tax refund" means the tax amount to be refunded under each individual tax law because the so-called "tax refund" has been paid or collected lawfully but the State has no justifiable reason to hold thereafter. In particular, the tax refund under special law is due to a reduction or exemption recognized mainly for political reasons, and the issue of whether such a tax refund has occurred shall be determined by whether the requirements for refund under each individual tax law are met

The procedures for deduction and refund of the amount of tax accompanying the tax exemption system for petroleum products for agriculture under Article 106-2 of the former Special Taxation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions related to the former Traffic Tax Act pursuant to Article 113 (3) and (1) of the same Act. The most appropriate provisions applicable to the case in this case shall be Article 17 (2) and (5) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Accordingly, where the goods or raw materials for which traffic tax has already been paid or is yet payable fall under any of the following subparagraphs, the amount of tax already paid shall be refunded under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this case, the person who intends to obtain deduction or refund under paragraph (2) of the same Article shall file an application for refund with the head of the competent tax office within 6 months from the date on which the relevant cause occurs, along with the documents prescribed by the Presidential Decree which are deemed to have already been paid by the person liable for tax payment under Article 7 (1) and (2) of the Act. The person who intends to receive the refund or other tax already paid within 3 months from the date of the application:

In addition, even if the system of the former Traffic Tax Act is established, the application for refund is accompanied by the application for tax base return, and there is no provision that the head of a tax office shall determine the amount of tax to be refunded, and the plaintiff's assertion that the tax office should make a separate decision on the application for refund

Meanwhile, Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the head of a tax office shall immediately determine the amount of refund as a national tax refund when there is a tax refund. However, the amount of refund is legally paid or collected but the State has no justifiable reason to hold thereafter, and thus, the amount of refund is determined to be returned under each tax-related Act. Thus, even if a tax office did not make a refund decision, the provisions on the determination of national tax refund under Article 51 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulate the refund procedure by the tax authority as an internal administrative procedure for the national tax for which the tax payer’s right to claim refund has already become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6436, Jun. 15, 1989). In addition, even if the tax authority should make a separate refund decision on the taxpayer’s application for refund as alleged by the Plaintiff, it does not necessarily make a decision of refund as to the amount of refund under Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act for the same reason.

(5) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the provision on the collection of a traffic tax that has been refunded should be subject to Article 17(8) of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 20(7) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act because the Plaintiff received an application for refund of traffic tax in accordance with the refund procedure under Article 17 of the former Traffic Tax Act and Article 20 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, and that the collection of the traffic tax that has been deducted and refunded cannot be made in accordance with the general provision of Article 9(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act. Thus, in light of Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the procedures for collecting the traffic tax that has been deducted and refunded under Article 113(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the pertinent goods, and Article 106-2(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act shall be limited to the case where the petroleum products are not used for the pertinent purpose or are transferred within five years from the date of carrying in under Article 106-2(2) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act.

However, according to the above, in this case, since tax-free oil was supplied to a person other than a farmer, etc. in the oil station prior to being brought into the farm before being brought into the farm, Article 113(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act cannot be applied to the same case. Accordingly, the relevant provisions of the former Traffic Tax Act or the former Special Consumption Tax Act (Article 17(8)(or Article 15(2) of the former Traffic Tax Act) and Article 20(7)(or Article 18(2) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis in accordance with the above provisions.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that it is impossible to correct the tax amount under Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act under the system of the former Traffic Tax Act, where the goods refunded with the traffic tax under Article 17(8) of the former Traffic Tax Act are not used for the prescribed purpose. However, the application of Article 17(8) of the former Traffic Tax Act is the case where the duty-free goods properly brought in are used for the purpose other than the proper purpose, and the application of Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act differs from the case where there is an error or omission in the tax amount reported by the taxpayer, so it cannot be deemed impossible to additionally collect the tax amount under Article 9(8) of the former Traffic Tax Act, on the ground that there is a provision of additional collection of the tax amount under Article 17(8) of the latter Traffic Tax Act.

(6) Therefore, the tax authority should be deemed to be able to collect the traffic tax refunded in the event of an error or omission in the amount of refundable traffic tax pursuant to Article 9(1) of the former Traffic Tax Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was made without any grounds for disposition is without merit.

B. Whether the Constitution violates the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, who did not have any reason for the illegal distribution of tax-free petroleum for agriculture, violates the principle of self-responsibility. As such, in relation to the aforementioned assertion, the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the following order: (i) the content of self-responsibility under the Constitution; (ii) whether the Plaintiff’s cause for the instant disposition exists for the purpose of the Plaintiff; and (iii) whether there was any cause attributable to the Plaintiff with respect to the illegal distribution

(2) Contents of the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution

The issue of whether to prohibit and punish a violation by law is, in principle, a matter of principle, considering the nature of the violation, the degree of social economic harm caused by the violation, the preventive effect caused by sanctions, and other social reality and the general perception and legal sentiment of the people about the act, or if a law stipulates that a legal sanction is made in all regardless of whether it is responsible for the violation, it causes a matter of violation of the Constitution as a sanction beyond the scope of self-responsibility.

The right to self-determination or general freedom of action derived from the right to pursue happiness as stipulated in Article 10 of the Constitution respect the decision and selection of a person who is distinct and responsible, and the responsibility for the right to self-determination is assumed to be borne by him/her. The principle of self-responsibility functions as the principle of limitation of responsibility, without holding any responsibility for the function as the basis for the right to self-determination and also for the non-determination or non-determination of a person. The scope of responsibility for self-determination also functions as the principle of limitation of responsibility, which refers to the result of self-determination or the relation with him/her. Such principle of self-responsibility is not the principle that reflects human freedom and flexibility, and human dignity, but rather the basic principle of modern civil law or criminal law, and Article 13(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea constitutes an expression, and thus, constitutes a violation of the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 200Hun-Ga427, Apr. 24, 2002).

(2) Whether a cause attributable to the Plaintiff is necessary

① Article 2 of the former Traffic Tax Act provides that traffic tax shall be imposed on gasoline and substitute oil similar thereto (Article 2); Article 3 of the same Act provides that a person who manufactures and takes out the goods shall be liable to pay taxes (Article 7); and Article 7 of the same Act provides that a person liable to pay taxes shall file a return on the quantity and value (including refund tax) of the goods taken out of a manufacturing place each month by the goods that he/she takes out of a manufacturing place; and Article 7 of the same Act provides that traffic tax shall be reduced or exempted in cases where “the farmers, fishermen, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree are petroleum for use in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries and prescribed by the Presidential Decree” (Article 106-2). Accordingly, according to the above provisions, the traffic tax shall meet the requirements of Article 106-2 of the former Special Assistance Act to reduce or exempt traffic tax, and the person liable to pay taxes

However, as to whether the traffic tax refunded in this case satisfies the requirements of Article 106-2 of the former Act, the Plaintiff issued a traffic tax refund from the Defendant along with the certificate of supply of the forged tax-free petroleum submitted by ○○ Petroleum, etc., and the Plaintiff rendered the instant disposition where the traffic tax was not refunded due to the Plaintiff’s use of the exempted oil for agriculture or fisheries, and the Defendant collected the traffic tax accordingly, is as seen above. Therefore, the instant disposition is to collect the traffic tax refund due to the fact that the Plaintiff, who was the owner of the taxable goods, did not carry the pertinent goods into agriculture but carried the goods out of agriculture after being refunded the traffic tax, was confirmed to have been refunded the traffic tax, and this cannot be said to violate the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14972, Oct. 27, 2011).

② Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that it violates the principle of self-responsibility to collect traffic tax on the Plaintiff who is not negligent in filing a declaration of tax-free petroleum supply certificate on the ground of the Constitutional Court’s decision that held that Article 232(1)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549, Dec. 29, 2001) provides that the manufacturer who supplied the exempted tobacco bears the obligation to pay tobacco consumption tax and the additional tax on the tobacco consumption tax if the Plaintiff fails to use the exempted tobacco for its intended purpose, and that it would be against the principle of self-responsibility to collect traffic tax on the Plaintiff who is not negligent in filing a declaration of tax-free tobacco supply certificate. However, the Plaintiff’s imposition of traffic tax on the exempted tobacco pursuant to the above provisions of the former Local Tax Act would have imposed tobacco exemption on the manufacturer of the tobacco who supplied the exempted tobacco, and thus, the Plaintiff’s imposition of traffic tax on the exempted tobacco would not be different from the case of this case where the Plaintiff had already paid the additional tax to the manufacturer of the tobacco, despite its absence of refund requirements.

(3) Whether there is no cause attributable to the Plaintiff

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit even if the plaintiff's ground is required to collect the traffic tax refunded to the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence of heading 16, 18, and 31 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings:

① ○○ Petroleum, which accounts for the largest portion of the certificates of supply in this case, is an area where the place of business of ○○ Petroleum is located in the Modern-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter omitted) and is not much consumed of duty-free petroleum for agriculture and fisheries.

② The above ○○ Petroleum’s facilities had two main organic tanks, two tank oil tanks, and one motor vehicle for tank glass tanks, all of which were abandoned and left alone, and Non-Party 2 began to conduct the business without any expense. After August 1, 2003, Non-Party 2 acquired by Non-Party 2 and opened the ○○ Petroleum business, the volume of duty-free petroleum treated sharply increased.

③ From September 2003 to July 2007, Nonparty 2 provided tax-free petroleum 14,064,934 more than 112 times to farmers, and forged the certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum, and submitted it to the Plaintiff’s Gangwon-do head office located in Gangwon-do ( Nonparty 2 submitted the certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum to another static, and only forged the certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum to the Plaintiff). The quantity of tax-free petroleum actually supplied to the farmers by Nonparty 2 is only 246,519 liters.

④ In fact, Nonparty 2 forged the certificate of supply of duty-free petroleum: (a) supplied a small amount of duty-free petroleum to farmers (the actual supply quantity is a small amount of 7,700 liters less than 420 liters; and (b) used the method of lowering the quantity supplied; (c) used the method of increasing the quantity of the supplied quantity; (d) the forged supply quantity is less than 48,700 liters more than 48,700 liters more than 252,61 liters more than 10,000 liters and increased the supply quantity.

⑤ The general form of transaction between oil refineries and gas stations is set up a security on the site and facilities of the gas station and then a certain amount of credit transaction is set off when the refund amount occurs. The Plaintiff and ○○ Petroleum’s transaction form is set off against the price of the goods. The entire amount of cash transaction without taking measures to secure claims, such as the creation of security, etc., and the refund amount was paid in kind without offsetting the price of the goods.

④ The total amount of redemption to be paid by the Plaintiff to ○ Petroleum is equivalent to KRW 5,685,321,356, and the Plaintiff, among them, supplied only the oil equivalent to KRW 3.5 billion to ○○ Petroleum in kind after deducting the dust, etc., and ○○ Petroleum sold the said oil supplied by the Plaintiff through a transaction without data.

(b) the sales board;

In the above facts, since the supply of duty-free petroleum increases from old ○○ Petroleum, which is a supplier of ○○○ petroleum, whose demand for duty-free petroleum for agriculture and fisheries was not high, to which the operator was changed, it seems that the Plaintiff could have confirmed its forgery by conducting an inspection on it or confirming the agricultural cooperative. (The Plaintiff asserted that it is impossible to confirm its daily supply of duty-free petroleum exceeding 10,000 cases annually, but it appears that the Plaintiff’s certificate of supply submitted by the Gangwon branch of the above ○○○ Petroleum was not a large quantity as alleged by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff could not be seen as having been sufficiently doubtful with respect to the submission of the certificate of supply of duty-free petroleum by ○○○ Petroleum, which is an employee of the Gangwon branch of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff could not be seen as having been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s ○○○ branch of the Plaintiff’s ○○ branch of the Plaintiff’s office’s business branch’s total supply of duty-free petroleum due to the Plaintiff’s mistake or negligence, and that the Plaintiff’s branch office’s total supply of duty-free.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is so unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judgment of the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor, and the Prosecutor

Impossibility of signing and sealing upon the retirement of judge;

1) However, the date of the disposition of 8,661,960 won of the traffic tax belonging to February 2, 2005 and 975,510 won of the education tax (see Article 43 of the Evidence A) on August 14, 2008, and the date of disposition of 43,130 won of the traffic tax belonging to January 2005 and 4,610 won of the education tax (see Article 61 of the Evidence A) on October 1, 2008 and the date of disposition of 610 won of the education tax (see Article 61 of the Evidence A) on October 1, 2008, since each of the above dispositions in this case did not have any special meaning and there is no dispute between the parties as to them, they shall be included in the above disposition on August 13, 2008.

2) On the other hand, based on Article 10 of the former Education Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007), the Defendant issued a revised notice of each of the special consumption tax pursuant to Article 11 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007). In relation to the decision of correction, the above provisions are the same as those of Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act, and thus, Article 9 of the latter Traffic Tax Act should be reviewed as a representative, barring any special circumstances.

3) On the other hand, based on Article 10 of the former Education Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007), the Defendant issued a revised notice of each of the special consumption tax pursuant to Article 11 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007). In relation to the decision of correction, the above provisions are identical to those of Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act, and thus, Article 9 of the latter Traffic Tax Act should be reviewed as a representative, barring any special circumstances.

(4) The disposition dated August 13, 2008 by the Plaintiff seems to have been issued and added to the object of the appeal.

5) The relevant provisions of the former Traffic Tax Act, the former Education Tax Act, and the former Special Consumption Tax Act are almost the same in its contents and structure, and thus, the former Traffic Tax Act shall be considered as a representative, barring any special circumstance.

6) The former Special Consumption Tax Act, like the former Traffic Tax Act, requires taxpayers under Article 9 to submit a return on the quantity and price of each goods sold or taken out each month, and the tax base and calculated tax amount for each goods, or exempted tax amount, deducted tax amount, refunded tax amount, paid tax amount, etc. by the end of the following month. Article 11(1) of the same Act provides that the head of the competent tax office or customs office shall determine or rectify the tax base and tax amount in cases where a return of education tax is not filed under Article 11(1) or there is an error or omission in the details of the return. On the other hand, Article 10(1) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act provides that the former Special Consumption Tax Act shall determine or rectify the tax base and tax amount in cases where

7) In the case of a refund following the retroactive deduction of losses pursuant to Article 72(1) and (3) of the Corporate Tax Act, the provision that the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the amount of refund, is different from the provision that the refund is to be made. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no separate basis for collection based on the Supreme Court Decision 2010Du17144 Decided December 23, 2010 related to the imposition of corporate tax, if there is no separate provision on the imposition of the amount of the tax, the said judgment cannot be applied as it is because the former Traffic Tax Act and the provision on the refund are different

8) In the case falling under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 30/100 of the calculated tax amount or underpaid tax amount shall be collected in addition to the tax amount to be collected. 1. In the case where the tobacco taken out pursuant to the provisions of Articles 231 and 232 is not used for its original purpose, but is sold, sold, consumed, or disposed of otherwise, the tobacco shall be exempted from tobacco consumption tax in a case where the manufacturer or import distributor supplies tobacco for the following purposes. 2. 3. Sale of the said tobacco to the armed forces, combat police officers, correctional facilities guard officers and foreign forces in Korea; 4. Sales of the crew of ocean-going ships and deep-sea fishing vessels in bonded areas; 5. 6. 7. 7. 7. 7. other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree: