Jeonju District Court-2014-Guhap-714 ( October 21, 2015)

The early appellate court 2013 Mine4392

The common purchase tax amount of slaughter operators who engage in concurrent and tax exemption shall be calculated in proportion to the value of supply.

Since the common input tax amount of slaughter operators engaged in concurrent business (tax exemption for one's own livestock, and tax exemption for entrusted livestock) cannot be divided into actual attribution depending on the number of slaughters, the common input tax amount shall be calculated in proportion to the ratio of the value of supply.

Article 61 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010)

(B)Revocation of revocation of request for rectification, 2015Nu221

00 Industry Co., Ltd.

00. Head of tax office

Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Guhap714 Decided January 21, 2015

June 8, 2015

July 6, 2015

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on October 000 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates slaughter business with the head office at Jung-Eup, and also operates value-added tax-free business such as slaughter, processing, and meat sales business purchased by the Plaintiff for sales purposes (hereinafter “self-Do slaughter business”), and the Value-Added Tax taxable business that provides slaughter and processing services on commission by others (hereinafter “entrusted slaughter business”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a return on value-added tax with the Defendant calculated in proportion to the supply value of a stable and entrusted stable, based on the sum of input tax amounts calculated based on slaughter, such as welfare expenses, repair expenses, expendable goods, fuel expenses, waste disposal expenses, etc. (hereinafter “instant major purchase tax amount”) incurred between the 000 and the 000th 200.

C. On October 00, 200, the Plaintiff asserted that the method of calculating the value-added tax for the above taxable period according to the ratio of the supply value of the disputed purchase tax for the instant taxable period originally reported is not reasonable, and filed a claim for correction to refund KRW 000,000, out of the total tax amount already paid, the Plaintiff claimed that it should be calculated in accordance with the number of slaughtered livestock and the consignment livestock.

D. On October 00, 200, the defendant issued a disposition rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction on the ground that the purchase tax amount at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue is commonly used for the plaintiff's taxable business and the tax exemption business and it constitutes a common purchase tax amount for which the actual attribution cannot be separated

E. On October 00, 200, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant rejection disposition, but the appeal was dismissed on October 0, 2000.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s content of value-added tax return and the number of slaughters are as shown in attached Tables 2 and 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 8, Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant refusal disposition

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s slaughter process is conducted through the same process in the facilities in which self-Slaughter and consignment slaughter are the same. The weight at the time of ordinary slaughter is about 100 km or 120 km per 1 marig, and 400 km or 500 km per 1 mari. Thus, the instant rejection disposition should be revoked by unlawful means, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s slaughter process is based on the difference between the input tax amount necessary for slaughter of one marith and one marith, and the input tax amount necessary for slaughter of one marith in the calculation of the difference between the input tax amount necessary for slaughter of one marith, and the input tax amount necessary for slaughter of one marith, one e.g., one e., one e., one e., one marith., one e., one e., one marith.

2) Even if the Plaintiff’s input tax amount for domestic affairs constitutes a common input tax amount that cannot be classified into an actual attribution, the tax-free business portion out of the supply value is the value of cattle and pigs slaughtered and sold by the Plaintiff, and the taxable business portion is the commission for slaughter of cattle and pigs. The supply value of the duty-free business portion is the supply value of goods that include the sales value of cattle and pigs, whereas the supply value of the services that are not included in the value of cattle and pigs. On the other hand, the supply value of the duty-free business portion is considerably unreasonable to calculate the common input tax in proportion to the supply value of cattle and pigs that are different in nature. Thus, the instant rejection disposition should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1 is as shown in attached Table 1.

C. Determination

Article 61(1) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) stipulating the method of calculating common input tax amount in order to determine the scope of input tax amount not deducted from the output tax amount pursuant to delegation under Article 17(7) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 61(1) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as “Enforcement Decree”) shall be an order issued by the President pursuant to Article 75 of the Constitution with respect to the matters to be delegated with specific scope under the Act. Meanwhile, the above provisions cannot be deemed as merely an example that can be divided into two different methods and order from the actual input tax amount at the time of purchase. Thus, the common purchase price of goods cannot be determined separately based on the above provision.

In light of the above legal principles, it appears that the Plaintiff’s actual purchase price of 10 gs. 2, 11, and 12 can be determined by comprehensively considering the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s workplace appears to have been engaged in the same slaughter and commission livestock at the same facility; (b) the Plaintiff’s characteristics, such as the mouth, s.e., slaughter of 15 gs., slaughter of s. 15 gs., and the Plaintiff’s input tax rate of 0 gs. 1s. 2 and 3s. 1s. 4 gs., the Plaintiff’s total purchase price of 0 gs. 1s. 1s. 4 gs. 1s. 4 gs. 1s. 1s. 2s. 1s. 1s. 1s. 1s. 1s. 1s.

On the other hand, when calculating the tax amount based on the value of supply, the tax-free business portion is the value of cattle and pigs that the Plaintiff purchased, slaughtered and processed, and sold, and the tax-free business portion includes the value of cattle and pigs. However, since the tax-free business portion includes the value of cattle and pigs entrusted by others, it is not included in the value of cattle and pigs, it is an inevitable phenomenon due to different aspects of the value included in the tax-free business portion and the taxable business portion. However, as seen earlier, the method of calculating the actual purchase value by such method cannot be classified into two different methods and two different methods in terms of the content of the tax-free business and the taxable business. As such, even if there is a relatively large difference in the calculation result of the Plaintiff’s calculation method and the ratio of the supply value, it cannot be viewed as a special circumstance that the calculation of the actual purchase value is considerably unreasonable in proportion to the ratio of the supply value.

Therefore, the rejection disposition of this case on the ground that the issue purchase tax of this case constitutes a common purchase tax in which the actual attribution is not separated, and that it should be calculated proportionally according to the ratio of the value of supply in accordance with Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree, is lawful.

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, and it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.