Whether the "gol-type golf equipment transport vehicle" falls under the "gol-type golf equipment" under Article 1 (2) 1-2-3 of the Special Consumption Tax Act.

In light of its purpose, a motor-driven machine transport vehicle falls under a "golf product" under Article 1 (2) 1 and 2-3 of the Special Consumption Tax Act. Thus, the delegation of the above Act can not be deemed as a violation of the principle of no taxation without law or a provision of taxable goods under the Enforcement Decree by deviating from the scope of delegation by the mother law.

Class 1 3 of Article 1(2) of the Special Consumption Tax Act, Class 1 2 of Article 1 and Class 1 2 of the attached Table 1

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Yong-gu Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu1985 delivered on September 17, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney are also examined (the grounds of appeal in supplementary appellate briefs not timely filed are limited to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In light of its purpose, “a golf vehicle operating with a driving machine in the form of a driving machine” under Article 1 subparag. 1 subparag. 2-A of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act is deemed to fall under “a golf product” under Article 1(2) subparag. 1-Class 2-3 of the Special Consumption Tax Act in light of the purpose of its use. Thus, with the delegation of the above Act, it cannot be deemed to violate the principle of no taxation without law by stipulating “a golf vehicle operating with a driving machine in the form of a driving machine” under Article 1(2) subparag. 1-Class 2-A of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, or by deviating from the scope of delegation by the mother law,

The judgment of the court below to this purport is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, and omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit. The decisions of the party members who are in the Republic of Korea are not appropriate to be invoked in this case. There is no reason

2. According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below that the goods of this case fall under the "gol-type golf transport vehicle" as stipulated in Class 1-Class 1-Class 2-A of attached Table 1-Class 1-Class 2-A of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any errors such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)