Whether the lubrication business falls under the category of petroleum refining business

The provisions of Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the former Corporate Tax Act or the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) that the Defendant had taken a tax exemption measure in accordance with Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act, because the lubrication business is also a kind of petroleum refining business, shall be null and void since it was enacted without any ground under the former

Article 21 of the Corporate Tax Act Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu123 delivered on December 22, 1970 (Dakhd 9331, Supreme Court Decision 18Noh 132(11), 836, 230(11), 231 of the Civil Procedure Act

Dongyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Jeon Jong-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Head of South Busan District Tax Office (Attorney Park Jae-ap, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 1, 1970

Supreme Court Decision 69Nu107 Decided October 31, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 69Nu60 Decided May 12, 1970

(1) Each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,413,743 of the occasional corporate tax of the same year as of June 4, 1966 against the Plaintiff is revoked, respectively.

(2) Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1.2 Nullification of each administrative disposition described in the order

Each revocation of an administrative disposition described in the disposition

The Defendant applied the Plaintiff Company’s “lubrication business” to “petroleum refining business” under Article 21 subparag. 1 of the Corporate Tax Act prior to the amendment, and took a corporate tax exemption from the starting year of the business from 1961 to 1964, and then the fact that each administrative disposition, such as the subsequent written order, was issued, does not conflict between the parties.

However, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's business did not correspond to the petroleum refining business, which is a petroleum refining business, under Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, due to mistake, recognized it as a petroleum refining business under the provisions of Article 14 of the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and applied tax exemption measures from the year 1961 to 1964, and thus, it is all justified that each of the above administrative dispositions was issued for the purpose of correction. Thus, the defendant's 16 evidence and 17 evidence and 19 evidence (the examination report of the witness non-party 1), and the above 19 evidence (the examination report of the witness non-party 2), and the above 19 evidence were examined before the parties' pleadings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the above taxation without the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy under Article 10 of the Corporate Tax Act and the above 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act is invalid, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the above taxation without any other evidence or evidence established by the defendant.

In this case, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition is justifiable without having to go through a daily judgment on the remaining issues, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)