The case holding that "alternative oil similar to gasoline" which is subject to the imposition of special consumption tax shall be applicable to the case

If the product of this case is extracted by mixing softs and Toluene, etc., which are products of the petroleum chemical and industry, with the ratio of 60:40, and if it is added to gasoline, reduces the ratio of inflammable carbon in the internal combustion engine by burning it together with small quantities of gasoline, and removes various factors resulting from abnormal combustion phenomenon caused by salking phenomenon by increasing the greenhouse gas, and serves as a substitute oil similar to gasoline by reducing the consumption of gasoline that increased by burning and extinguishing the product itself and mixing it with gasoline, it is subject to the special consumption tax provided for in Articles 1(2) and 4-1 of the Special Consumption Tax Act, Articles 1(2) and 4-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 1(2) and 4-2 of the same Decree.

Class 4-2 of Article 1(2) of the Special Consumption Tax Act; Class 1-2 of Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Class 2 of Article 1 of the same Decree;

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu660 Delivered on March 27, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Director of the National Tax Service

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu426 delivered on July 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff manufactured fuel additives of 476,585 liter (sale price of 205,317,840 won) between January 31, 1982 and May 18 of the same year, 476,58 and carried out 469,985 liter directly or through large-scale companies, etc., and the remaining 6,600 liters remains in inventory after the abolition of the manufacture of the above goods. The above goods were extracted by mixing 60:40 % of 193 of petroleum chemical and industry products, which were added to gasoline and 60 % of 60:40, see the judgment of the court below that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to 14th of 6th of 6th of 1st of 1st of 1st of 1982 and 1st of 3th of 1st of 6th of 2nd of 1st of lux and its substitute fuel.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)