Review Other 2009-0024 (209.06.09)

The procedures for approval of tax exemption shall be implemented even if the shipper of the goods shipped out as conditional tax exemption re-out;

In order for a shipper of the goods shipped out as conditional tax exemption to obtain conditional tax exemption again, the requirements for tax exemption approval under the Individual Consumption Tax Act are equally met, and this is also the same in case where a vehicle for rent-a-car business, which is conditional duty-free goods, is taken out again following business transfer.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant △△ Director shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against △△ Director is dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs shall bear the litigation costs.

The imposition of the individual consumption tax on April 15, 2008 by the head of △△ Tax Office, which was made against the Plaintiff New Zealand on April 15, 2009, of KRW 1,630,570, individual consumption tax on July 2008, KRW 1,868,570, individual consumption tax on July 2008, KRW 3,776,370 on individual consumption tax on August 2008, individual consumption tax on KRW 12,113,760 on individual consumption tax on October 208, individual consumption tax on KRW 815,280 on April 208, individual consumption tax on KRW 934,280, KRW 1,88,180 on August 208, and KRW 6,05,80 on the individual consumption tax on KRW 880,80, and KRW 130 on the imposition of the individual consumption tax on each of Defendant △△.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. AArenccar Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Arenccar”) did not report and pay the individual consumption tax for the 149 vehicles transferred within five years from the date of entry into the ▽▽△△△△ Group Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “▽▽▽△”) among the vehicles brought into Korea as conditional tax exemption from January 2002 to December 2007.

B. Accordingly, the head of △△△ Tax Office imposed individual consumption tax on March 2, 2009 on the 49 vehicles transferred at the head office of AArenk on March 2, 2009 among the above 149 vehicles and individual consumption tax on April 2, 2008 and education tax on the 3,023,590 won, individual consumption tax and education tax on July 2008, and individual consumption tax on August 2008, and individual consumption tax and education tax on 6,110,60 won, and individual consumption tax and education tax on 19,601,58, and individual consumption tax and education tax on 149 vehicles transferred at the △△△ branch of Arenkk on April 12, 2009, and did not impose individual consumption tax and individual consumption tax on the 149 vehicles transferred at the △△△ branch of Arenk on March 209, 2003, the claimed amount of education tax and additional tax on the A 130309, and additional tax on the vehicles.

B. Accordingly, the Defendants deemed that the Plaintiffs are oligopolistic shareholders of AArenk under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. ① The Defendant △△△ director of the tax office imposed individual consumption tax and education tax imposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiffs on April 15, 2009, as stated in the former part of the claim, and the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination on April 28, 2009, but dismissed on June 9, 2009. ② The Defendant △△△ director of the tax office imposed individual consumption tax and education tax for the Plaintiff on October 23, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] A. 2,3,5,6 evidence No. 1,2,7 evidence No. 4 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 4-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit against Defendant △△ Head of the Tax Office is legitimate

ex officio, the plaintiffs' action against the defendant △ director of the △△ Tax Office is legitimate, and the imposition disposition of individual consumption tax on April 12, 2009 by the plaintiff △△ director of the △△ Tax Office against the defendant △△ director of the △△△ director was made against the defendant △△ director of the △△ director and it was not against the plaintiff △ director of the △△ director, and there is no standing to sue against the above disposition. Thus, the lawsuit against the defendant △△ director of the △ director of the △△ director of the △ director office

3. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

① As the Plaintiff’s transfer of AArenk to a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “▽▽Lcar”) is a comprehensive transfer of rent-a-car business, it cannot be deemed that a vehicle brought into Korea as a conditional tax exemption is transferred. ② If a conditional tax exemption vehicle is taken out for the same purpose, it shall undergo the approval procedure, but even if the Plaintiff failed to implement it, it would be subject to imposition of an administrative fine, etc., even if it could be regulated by the imposition of an administrative fine, it would be a deviation or abuse of discretion in tax administration.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s New York is a representative director of AAenek and a person holding 18,00 shares out of 30,00 shares issued by AAenek. The Plaintiff’s largestB is an auditor of AAenek and a person holding 9,00 shares out of 18,00 shares of AAenek.

2) During the process of promoting a business plan to acquire an existing vehicle rental company and establish an automobile rental company, Between Between Blue and Blue Trust Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△), the company requested an AArenk accounting corporation to conduct a due inspection on the assets and liabilities of AArenk. After conducting a due inspection on the assets and liabilities of AArenk, Blue Trust accounting corporation divided the assets and liabilities of Blue Trust into those to be excluded from those subject to acquisition.

3) around July 1, 2008, △△ Self-Governing Province set the name of the car rental company, which will be newly established, as ○○○ Company, and prepared a draft of business transfer agreement between the said company and AArenk as follows:

4) After this, AArenk had sold 104 306 306 30 306 306 30 302 202 202 202 200 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 30 300 30 300 30 30 30 30 300 30 30 30 30

5)Arenck entered into a contract on October 1, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "contract on acquisition by transfer") with the assets and liabilities of AArenck under title "Arenk's agreement on acquisition by transfer of assets and liabilities," which was changed from the trade name of the new motor vehicle leasing company △△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement on acquisition by transfer of assets") and the entry into the acquisition agreement of this case (Evidence 8-1 and 2) as follows:

6)Arenck transferred, under the contract, the assets and liabilities subject to the instant transfer, all employees, 11 branches, and business networks to the ▽▽△△△△△ on June 29, 2009, and filed a tax invoice for the vehicle sale amount and paid a value-added tax of approximately KRW 300 million.

7) On October 7, 2008, the ▽▽Ma made a report on the transfer and acquisition of rent-a-car business to the viewing of △△△△△, and the Plaintiff New A received KRW 300 million and worked as a management adviser from the ▽▽▽Ma, while running rent-a-car business.

8)On the other hand, the instant transfer of vehicles transferred from the head office of AAren Citcar to the ▽xvL based on the contract is part of the vehicles transferred within five years from the date of entry into the vehicle from January 2002 to December 2007 by AArenk as conditional tax exemption under the Individual Consumption Tax Act, and AArenk was not subject to the procedure of approving exemption under the Individual Consumption Tax Act, but filed a report on the transfer of the vehicle from January 2009 to January 2009, after the instant disposition was taken.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap's 8,9,12,14,15,16,17 evidence, Eul's 6,8,12 (including each number), witness's testimony and the whole purport of pleadings

D. Determination

1) According to the relevant laws and regulations, where conditional duty-free goods are transferred within five years from the date on which the person who brought in the conditional duty-free goods was brought in, the individual consumption tax shall be collected from the person who brought in, and where the rent-a-car business itself is comprehensively transferred as claimed by the Plaintiff, the transfer of conditional duty-free goods cannot be deemed the transfer of business, and the comprehensive transfer of business refers to the comprehensive transfer of business property, including business property, physical and human facilities

Therefore, there is evidence of this case that the transfer of this case constitutes a comprehensive business transfer under the contract, and there is evidence of this case. ① The object of this case is a witnessCC and DoD. The object of this case is selected as being essential for the automobile rental business. ② AArenk has already sold a vehicle with no asset value prior to the conclusion of this case’s transfer contract, ③ as the title of the contract was changed into an asset transfer contract, the object of transfer is also indicated as a specific asset and debt of AArenk. The object of transfer is excluded from the part of the contract’s transfer, the claim and debt incurred before the completion of the acquisition also belong to AArenk, and the claim that the credit and debt incurred after the completion of the contract belong to the TPPLLG, and it is difficult to view that the above transfer of the vehicle was not a specific type of asset transfer of the vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of the vehicle and debt of this case constitutes the acquisition of the vehicle of this case, even if there is no other evidence to acknowledge the transfer of the vehicle.

2) Conditional tax exemption under Article 18 of the Individual Consumption Tax Act provides the pertinent goods subject to conditional tax exemption under the condition that they will continue to be provided for special purposes as stipulated by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In light of the fact that it is necessary for the taxation authority to take certain procedural regulatory measures to ensure strict ex post facto management, such as confirming and inspecting the implementation of such conditions, and the necessity of such procedural regulation is recognized as it is at the time of the exemption from the relevant individual consumption tax, in case where the shipper ships the pertinent goods carried out under conditional tax exemption is carried out to provide the said goods for the same purpose, the requirements for conditional tax exemption under Article 18(1) through (3) of the Individual Consumption Tax Act are equally implemented if the shipper carried out the goods under conditional tax exemption and re-out the vehicles for rent-a-car business, which are conditional duty-free goods, following the business transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10444, Apr.

According to the above facts of recognition, AArenk transferred a vehicle that was brought into a conditional duty-free shop with a conditional duty-free shop, and failed to comply with the procedure for granting tax exemption under the Individual Consumption Tax Act, AArenk is obligated to pay the individual consumption tax on the said vehicle in this respect. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s imposition of the individual consumption tax on the said vehicle is in accordance with the administrative agency’s decoration provision or that it abused or deviates from discretion as a disposition having the risk of double taxation is rejected.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.