logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1972. 12. 26. 선고 72누106 판결
[행정처분취소,물품세부과처분취소][집20(3)행,035]
Main Issues

The meaning of the so-called "ordinary price" as the tax base for goods;

Summary of Judgment

The meaning of the so-called "ordinary price" as the goods tax base.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2(1) of the Goods Tax Act, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

original decision

Daegu High Court Decision 71Gu42 delivered on March 29, 1972

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s litigant;

According to the original judgment, the court below revoked the defendant's disposition on the premise that the transaction price of KRW 490 through KRW 550 per unit of the goods tax collected at source is determined on the basis of the following facts: (a) the plaintiff, based on the timely evidence, sells approximately 3/4 of the store for the contact of the plaintiff, 40 won per unit of the goods at source, 490 through 550 won per unit of the goods at source, and sells the remainder to other consumers; (b) in the electronic transaction, 400 won per unit of the goods at source shall be borne by the purchaser and the purchaser shall be borne by the transportation cost and containers; and (c) in the latter case, 400 won per unit of the goods at source shall be determined on the basis of the fact that both the goods tax, container use cost and transportation cost are the small amount of transaction volume; and (d) thus, the transaction price of KRW 400 per unit of retail between the plaintiff and the above non-party company shall be determined on the basis of the ordinary price under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Act.

However, in full view of the provisions of Article 2(1)1, Article 2(2) and (3) of the Goods Tax Act, and Article 5(1)1 and 5(1)5(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3(1)1 and 5 of the same Act) of the same Act, the term “the ordinary price of small amount of goods under Article 5(1)1(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3(1)1 of the same Act) means the amount equivalent to the above price (including container costs and packing costs of the goods) where a manufacturer or seller freely ships or sells goods to all buyers by means of ordinary trading quantity and ordinary trading method. Accordingly, even if the manufacturer or seller's specific transaction price of each specific transaction of the goods is to be interpreted as an abstract market price or market price determined without considering the peculiarity of the trading method or transaction situation, it is clear that the manufacturer or seller's average trading price of the goods at the time of the original adjudication is not determined as the standard trading price.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that revoked the tax disposition based on the premise that the above 400 won transaction price falls under the above ordinary price is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore the argument is reasonable.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)

arrow