Busan High Court 2014Nu83 (Law No. 23, 2014)

The imposition of traffic tax illegally deducted is legitimate, but the imposition of penalty tax is illegal.

The imposition of principal tax on traffic tax and value-added tax, which are deducted from the forged and altered tax-free coophone, is legitimate, but there is a justifiable reason that it is not attributable to the failure to verify the authenticity of the tax, so the imposition of penalty tax against insincereful payment is illegal.

Article 17 of the Traffic Tax Act shall be deducted and refunded.

2014du11649, revocation of disposition imposing traffic tax, etc.

-Appellee

2. AA Energy Co., Ltd.

-Appellant

1. ○○ Metropolitan City Mayor; 2. ○○ Head of tax office;

Busan High Court Decision 2014Nu83 decided July 23, 2014

February 26, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the employment evidence, the lower court determined that the instant disposition of imposition of the principal tax of value-added tax was lawful on the grounds that the legal principles on the protection of good faith trading parties regarding input tax deduction or zero-rate tax exemption, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, do not apply to the correction disposition to correct the unlawfully refunded amount of traffic tax, education tax, and driving tax (hereinafter “traffic tax, etc.”).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the protection of good faith trading parties under the Value

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

Article 7 (1) of the former Traffic Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11123, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "former Traffic Tax Act") and Article 7 (1) of the former Traffic, Energy, and Environment Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11123, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Traffic Tax Act") provide that the person liable to pay traffic tax (or traffic, energy, and environment tax) shall submit a report on the quantity and value of the goods taken from the manufacturing place to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the manufacturing place by the end of the following month stating the calculated tax amount, unpaid tax amount, exempted tax amount, refundable tax amount, payable tax amount, etc.

The court below held that since Article 9 (1) of the former Traffic Tax Act provides that "tax base and tax amount shall be limited to "tax base" and the reason for the decision of correction shall be the case where there is an error or omission in the details of the return under Article 7 without limiting the tax base, the head of the competent tax office may make the decision of correction pursuant to Article 9 (1) where there is an error in the details of the return under Article 7, and that "an error or omission in the details of the return as a reason for correction of the traffic tax, etc." is objectively against the facts. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiffs' return of the tax amount and the amount of the tax amount based on the above and modified tax-free cool constitutes an error or omission in the contents of the return, which is the reason for correction, and that the plaintiffs' return of the tax amount and the amount of the tax amount based on the above and modified tax-free cool is not a reason for the above and alteration of the tax-free cool, etc.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of traffic tax refund or the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the disposition of imposing additional tax on the plaintiffs on the ground that there is a justifiable ground that the plaintiffs did not cause any negligence on the duty to report and pay the value-added tax and traffic tax in this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the justifiable ground that the plaintiffs are exempt from additional payment, as

3. Conclusion

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