logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 4. 30. 선고 71누30 판결
[물품세부과처분취소][집19(1)행,088]
Main Issues

With respect to goods that were newly taxed by the enforcement of the amended Act (No. 2155 of Jan. 1, 1970) among the goods tax law, it is apparent that the lack of deemed provision on the goods tax can be collected from the possessor of the sub-paragraph (4) of the same paragraph because it is clear that there is no need to consider the goods of the manufacturing place, manufacturer, shipper, and the person taking the goods.

Summary of Judgment

With respect to goods which were newly taxed by the enforcement of the amended Act (Act No. 2155 of Jan. 1, 1970) among the goods tax law, it is apparent that the necessity of the deemed provision on the manufacturing place, manufacturer, shipper, taking-out person, and taking-in person can collect the goods tax from the possessor of the sub-paragraph of the same paragraph.

[Reference Provisions]

Paragraph 4 of the Addenda to the Amendment of Goods Tax Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Korea Commercial Service Corporation

Defendant-Appellee

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 70Gu341 delivered on March 2, 1971

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined as follows. Article 3 (4) of the Addenda to the Act No. 2155 of Jan. 1, 1970 (amended Act of Law No. 2155 of the Goods Tax Law) and Article 3 (3) of the Addenda to the Act shall be reviewed in comparison with the above Act. As to the goods which were newly taxed by the original judgment due to the enforcement of the above revised Act, such as "Japanese Baner", it is not recognized that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the imposition of the goods tax from the owner of the same paragraph without the need to consider the manufacturing place, manufacturer, shipper, and consignee, as alleged in the theory under paragraph (4) of the above Addenda, as to the goods which were newly taxed by the original judgment, the original judgment violated Article 90 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 90 of the Addenda to the Act on Jan. 1, 1970.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu

arrow