The case holding that the special consumption tax constitutes "seller of special agreement" under Article 8 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act.

The phrase "seller of special agreement" under Article 8 subparagraph 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act refers to a person who exclusively purchases and exclusively sells goods or products of a specific person for a certain period within the scope of time, and enters into a special contract on the price, method of payment, etc. differently from ordinary trade. Thus, if the company's trademark right with respect to a certain standard and quality contract product is made and supplied by the company Eul under the order of the company Eul, and if the company agrees to bear the expenses for the advertisement and publicity of the product, which is natural to be included in the salesman under corporate accounting, as a matter of course, it is presumed that the agreement is based on the premise that the company Eul made an exclusive and exclusive purchase and sale of the product. Further, if the company agreed to set the minimum purchase amount per year and agreed to pay advertising expenses to the company Gap for the sale of the product, it constitutes a "seller of special agreement" in relation to the sales of the product.

Article 8 of the Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

God Co., Ltd.

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of 26,103,50 won of the special consumption tax reverted to the plaintiff on October 1, 198 through December 31, 1988, and 8,542,960 won of the special consumption tax reverted to the plaintiff on October 1, 1988 through December 31, 198, and the imposition of 50,756,30 won of the special consumption tax reverted to the plaintiff on October 31, 198, and 16,611,150 won of the special consumption tax reverted to the plaintiff on October 31, 198 shall be revoked.

1. The plaintiff corporation manufactured beer products that are subject to special consumption tax, which are a corporation engaged in the manufacturing of self-processed products, and sold them to the non-party limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party limited liability company"). The plaintiff calculated the tax base based on the plaintiff's shipment price of beer products sold to the above limited liability company between October 1, 1988 and December 31, 198 and October 31, 1989, and paid the special consumption tax and defense tax to the defendant on January 23, 1990 as the defendant paid the special consumption tax and defense tax to the plaintiff on January 23, 1990. The sale price of beer products supplied to the limited liability company during the above period shall be calculated based on the sale price at the sale price at the above limited liability store, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the special consumption tax and the special consumption tax by self-return.

2. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case, and since there is no special agreement sales contract between the plaintiff and the limited liability company with respect to the sale of the above be concluded, the plaintiff's disposition of this case which regarded the limited liability company as a seller of special agreement cannot be viewed as a "seller of special agreement" under Article 8 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, Article 8 (1) 1 and 2 of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides that the tax base of special consumption tax shall be the amount equivalent to the actual market price (excluding the special consumption tax and value added tax on the goods) of the sales outlet; the price at the time of sale at the sales outlet; the goods manufactured and taken out by the taxpayer shall be based on the price at the time of sale from the sales outlet; Article 8 (1) 11 of the Enforcement Decree shall be the price at the time of sale or taking out as provided in Article 8 (1) 1 and 2; and Article 8 (1) 11 of the Enforcement Decree shall be the price at the time of sale or taking out to the seller, but where the goods manufactured by the manufacturer are sold or taken out to the special contract seller, the goods manufactured by the special contract seller shall be the price at the price at a lower than the actual market price at the sales outlet (the price not included in the special consumption tax and value added tax on the goods in question); in light of the purport of the provision, "seller of special agreement" in the above Enforcement Decree shall be a person with respect to the basic transaction within a certain period.

However, according to the statement Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (written confirmation), Eul evidence 6 (supply contract), Eul evidence 10 through 12 (each specification of transactions), the plaintiff and limited liability company's contract for the supply of the above products shall be manufactured (Articles 1 and 2 of the above supply contract) according to the composition and prescription agreed between the plaintiff and limited liability, and shall be supplied to the agreed packing form and the limited packing unit (Article 11 of the above contract) (Article 11 of the above), the name of the products shall be used to register the trademark with limited liability under the name of limited liability, and the trademark right to be used to the above products shall be used to be registered with limited liability 10,000 won and limited liability 10,000 won for 10,000 won and limited liability 50,000 won for each contract (Article 4 of the above contract).

As seen above, if the plaintiff manufactured and supplied the products in accordance with the order of the limited company with limited trademark rights to a certain standard and quality contract product, and the plaintiff agreed to bear the costs of advertising and publicity of the products, which are naturally included in the salesman under corporate accounting, such agreement is naturally premised on the agreement to exclusively and exclusively purchase and sell the products, and further, it is deemed that the agreement to agree to purchase the products in advance and to bear the costs of advertising and publicity with limited liability as a matter of course is concluded differently from the ordinary transaction as to the terms and conditions of transaction. Therefore, the limited liability is recognized as constituting a special contract seller under Article 8 subparagraph 11 of the Enforcement Decree in relation to the sale of the above products.

In addition, as long as the supply of the whole quantity of beer products produced by the plaintiff to limited liability sellers, the imposition of the special consumption tax of this case, which the defendant calculated the tax base based on the price of the above limited sale store against the plaintiff in accordance with Article 8 subparagraph 11 of the above Enforcement Decree, is legitimate.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff as the losing party.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)