The meaning of the ordinary price serving as the tax base for the goods tax

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Goods Tax Act provides that the tax base of goods taxes shall be the price or quantity at the time of shipping out or selling goods from a manufacturing place or sold at a selling place, and Article 5 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the price at the time of shipping out or selling shall be the amount equivalent to the case where a manufacturer or seller takes out or sells goods in accordance with the usual trading quantity and method (ordinary price). The above ordinary price means a reasonable market price formed at the time of free trade depending on the demand and supply in accordance with the usual trading quantity and trading method, not at the same time, and at the same time, there may be more than one transaction quantity and transaction method, and there may be a variable.

(m)Article 2 of the Goods Tax Act (Law No. 2155), Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 6501)

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu113 delivered on November 12, 1974

Tymyang Industrial Company

Head of Three Tax Office

The disposition that the Defendant imposed the amount of KRW 6,997,047 on the Plaintiff on September 25, 1971 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of both meetings. As to the portion reported to be shipped out 240 won per two times from February 1969 to August 1971, the plaintiff's factory in the same year of the plaintiff's possession, the defendant shall regard the shipment price (tax base amount) as 269 won per one per two times, and 139,940,947 won in total as 67 won in 139,97,047 won in 197 and 39 won in 197, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the additional imposition was made to the plaintiff on September 25, 197, and there is no dispute between the two parties as to the fact that the additional imposition was made to the non-party's factory and 1-3 (decision resolution, notice of taxation data, and tax collection balance sheet). Thus, the reasons why the defendant's above additional disposition was made to the non-party 2's delivery price to the plaintiff's head of the two offices.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the shipping price per two parcels of case is 240 won 50 won or more, and that the defendant's disposition which was not premised on this is improper.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4,5,7 (Purchase Contract, Inspection Protocol, and Sealing), the defendant recognized the official portion of the above 5% of the total document, Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Keeping Certificate), Gap 2,3 (Agreement) which is recognized as the authenticity of the entire document, and the whole purport of testimony and arguments, seven manufacturing companies exist in Korea. The two manufacturing companies manufactured by each mutually agreed upon are prohibited from being directly sold to the plaintiff within the Republic of Korea (except in the case of military payment indicated in export and foreign currency) and from being sold to the plaintiff 269 won per 20% of the total price of the above 5% of the total 5% of the 5% of the 5th sale price of the 5th sale price of the 5th sale market, and the 20th sale price of the above 5th sale price of the 5th sale market for the above 20th sale market for the above 5th sale market for the above 20th sale market for the plaintiff 20th sale market.

Therefore, in light of the above circumstances and the whole purport of the pleading by the other parties, the plaintiff guaranteed the supply of the sub-sales to the Public Procurement Service, and the plaintiff kept in custody of the two parts of the plaintiff's products to be supplied by the Public Procurement Service, and the plaintiff received 50 percent of the purchase price from the Public Procurement Service, the seller to the Public Procurement Service cannot be viewed as the plaintiff himself. Further, the fact that the plaintiff received 50 percent of the purchase price from the Public Procurement Service cannot be viewed as the advance sale method with the nature of the security deposit for the two items sealed by the Public Procurement Service, and it cannot be viewed as the advance sale method, and it cannot be viewed as any other special transaction method.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the ordinary price should be considered to be 269 won in the removal of the plaintiff's body, but it cannot be seen as such.

In other words, the tax base of the goods tax on Item 1 of Article 2 (1) of the Goods Tax Act provides that the goods which are taken out of a manufacturing place or sold at a selling place shall be the price or quantity at the time of taking out or selling them, and that the price at the time of taking out or selling them by the manufacturer or seller shall be the amount equivalent to the case of taking out or selling them by the usual transaction quantity and method (ordinary price). In other words, the normal price which serves as the tax base of the goods tax refers to a reasonable market price formed at the time of free trade according to the demand and supply by the usual transaction quantity and the transaction method, not at the same time, and at the same time, more than one can be used according to the transaction quantity and the transaction method and there may be variable. In this case, in supplying the goods to the public procurement office, the price at 263 won per unit, which is the price to be purchased in accordance with the Budget and Accounting Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if the Plaintiff takes out the goods to the public procurement office's price at the same price at the two different point, the manufacturer's price.

Therefore, it is not found underreporting that the plaintiff made 240 won 50 won of the reported price to the defendant for the Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Co., Ltd., and the disposition imposing additional tax on the defendant under the premise that the defendant considers the cost of shipping to the Posing Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Shipping Co., Ltd. as 269 won of the reported amount and the cost of shipping, and the disposition imposing additional tax on the defendant is unlawful.

Judge Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)