logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1990. 8. 24. 선고 90누3782 판결
[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1990.10.15.(882),2037]
Main Issues

Whether it is a practice of national tax administration that does not consider a special taxable person even if the supply price for the calendar year falls short of KRW 24,00,000,000 after business registration is performed as a general taxable person (negative)

Summary of Judgment

If a taxpayer fulfills all the obligations under the Value-Added Tax Act after filing a business registration as a general taxable person, it cannot be deemed that the supply price for the calendar year is less than 24,00,000 won, and it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer continues to be treated as a general taxable person and does not be regarded as a special taxable person, which is generally accepted by the taxpayer.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu419 delivered on March 30, 1990

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that if a taxpayer performs all the duties under the Value-Added Tax Act after he registered as a general taxable person, even if the supply price for the calendar year is less than 24,000,000 won, it shall be treated as a general taxable person continuously and it shall not be regarded as a special taxable person, and there is no data to regard it as a practice in the national tax administration accepted by the taxpayer as a general taxpayer. In light of the records, the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as otherwise pointed out. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)

arrow