Daejeon District Court-2015 Guhap-102469 ( March 30, 2016)

Cho Jae-2015- Daejeon-025 (O6, 2015)

The Plaintiff’s sales of the salted fish of this case are not subject to value added tax because it does not constitute unprocessed food.

The salted fish of this case is subject to value-added tax because it is equipped with manufacturing facilities and packages in an independent transaction unit for the purpose of sale, i.e., the salted fish of this case, which is exempt from value-added tax under the attached Table regulations.

Article 26 of the Value-Added Tax Act: Scope of Unprocessed foodstuffs, etc. exempt under Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Daejeon High Court 2016Nu11610 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

OO

O Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court 2015Guhap102469 ( October 30, 2016)

on October 08, 2016

November 17, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 51,953,520 won for the first term of 201 for the plaintiff on September 3, 2014, value-added tax of 51,953,520 won for the second term of 201, value-added tax of 79,171,766 won for the second term of 201, value-added tax of 4,902,470 won for the second term of 2012, value-added tax of 67,64,887 won for the second term of 2012, value-added tax of 43,916,053 won for the second term of 2013, value-added tax of 57,729,760 won for the second term of 2013.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: "The end of 2013" in Part 3, 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "the end of 2013 around October, 2013," and "the purchase was confirmed to have been made in the year 201, but not less than 120,000" in Part 5, and "the purchase was confirmed to have been made in the year 201," respectively, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition to Paragraph 2 below to the determination of the allegations specifically emphasized by the plaintiff in the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased and stored salted salted 20 kilograms of 20 kilograms without a salted manufacturing facility; (b) subdivided it into it; (c) supplied the fished scamed in the instant container temporarily packed in plastic containers for simple transportation convenience; (d) the fished scamed scam constitutes “food not processed” (unprocessed stuff) subject to value-added tax exemption under Article 24(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act; and (e) the instant disposition did not meet the taxation requirements (However, the Plaintiff failed to meet the taxation requirements).

Since October 2013, 2013, the packaging of the plastic container with the salted fish of this case on or after the plastic container does not temporarily pack for simple transportation convenience, but if so, the remaining imposition of value-added tax, excluding the imposition of value-added tax on the second quarter of 2013 among the instant disposition, does not meet the taxation requirements.

B. Determination

(1) Article 26(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of unprocessed foodstuffs (including agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, and forest products supplied for food) and agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, and forest products prescribed by Presidential Decree, which are not produced in the Republic of Korea and supplied for food, shall be exempted from value-added tax. Accordingly, Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "unprocessed foodstuffs under Article 26(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act are not processed" or "clock, rice, refined, milk, dried, dried, salt, salt, dried, salt, or other unprocessed foodstuffs provided for food through primary processing to the extent that the inherent nature of the original products does not change, and the scope of such provision is delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and accordingly, Article 24(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the scope of unprocessed foodstuffs and unprocessed foodstuffs supplied for food or unprocessed food products" (excluding livestock products).

Immediate The provisions of the attached Table of this case are as follows: ① in principle, the salted fish is subject to value-added tax exemption; ② exceptionally, the salted fish, sweeded fish, sweeded fish, and supplied in an independent transaction unit for sale purposes constituted non-value-added tax exemption. ② However, in the case of “temporary transport convenience”, the packaging of the packaging of the manufacturing facility falls under the category of non-value-added tax exemption exemption. ② (2) With respect to this case, the health unit, the Plaintiff’s health unit, the 'OOccuped fish' located at the early city, the 'OOccuped fish' located at the city, the 'Occuped food located at the city,' the Occuped fish, the 'Occuped fish', the 20 kilogramsed fish, the sweeded fish, the sweed fish, the sweed fish, the sweeded fish, etc. at the 20 kilograms facility, and the Plaintiff’s 3 mucked and lided m.

In addition to the above facts, considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 8, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the plaintiff's packaging of this case, such as the prevention of water leakage and the extension of preservation period due to the prevention of mixing of oxygen and damp water, etc., compared to the packaging of this case, the product value of the salt of this case seems to have significantly increased compared to the packaging of this case. The packaging of this case is to the extent that ordinary consumers can drink the fish of this case after purchasing it from Oscker, and it is difficult to view it as temporary packaging for simple transportation convenience, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff is equipped with "production facilities for storage, subdivision, packing, etc. of the salted fish," independent transaction unit (250 g or 500 g) for sale purpose, "containered plastic container similar to Sckin," and "Sknishing and supplying the fish of this case in the non-value added tax for the purpose of sale of this case."

(3) The plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff who was not equipped with the manufacturing facilities of the salted fish itself does not meet the taxation requirements by interpreting the "manufacturing facilities" as the "manufacturing facilities in the "manufacturing facilities" under the provision of the attached Table of this case, and claiming that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff did not meet the taxation requirements. However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was merely a modification of the expression prior to the amendment of the provision of the attached Table of this case to be seen as being a whole of the words "to supply the manufacturing facilities in an independent trade unit for the next time", "after being equipped with the manufacturing facilities" as the plaintiff's leader, it cannot be interpreted limited to "manufacturing facilities in the "manufacturing facilities in the "facilities equipped with the manufacturing facilities in the attached Table of this case" as the "facilities of the salted fish itself" as the plaintiff's leader. Thus, the plaintiff's argument of this case does not need further review whether the plaintiff was equipped with the manufacturing facilities in

(A) On April 3, 2001, the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act was partially amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 on April 3, 2001, the provisions of the attached Table of this case were amended to be stipulated as "kimchi, single-fash, spoke, spokeed fish, spokeed fish, weded fish, weds, weds, wneds (excluding those packed in the form of a pipe, bottled, or any similar form)" before the amendment. The provisions of the attached Table of this case, including the salted fish wed fish 1, kimchi, chi, spoke, weds

1) The Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act was partially amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 422 on March 11, 2005.

2) The Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act was partially amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 347 on January 26, 2004.

(1) The following facts are established: ① the process of manufacturing and cutting down salt by washing and cutting down stuffs (e.g., the process of manufacturing and cutting off salt and the process of manufacturing kimchi by mixing it with good faith; ② the process of manufacturing salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free salt-free, etc.).

3) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff constitutes the case of the above ②.

(B) Value-added tax is a tax which is imposed on the value added at each stage of production and distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu629, Dec. 26, 1984); and even if the value-added tax is not equipped with a facility that manufactures the relevant product, it is obvious that it is value added in the condition of "in the case of small products, kimchi, gymnasium, fluorium, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, spoke, and spokes per se with facilities (facilities, tools), which store, subdivide and pack them, and supplies them to an independent transaction unit for the purpose of sale, it conforms with the concept of value-added tax. Therefore, it is clear that imposing tax thereon is equivalent to the concept of value-added tax.

(C) There is no provision on the definition of ‘manufacturing' or ‘manufacturing facilities' under the Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes, but the prior meaning of ‘manufacturing' is to make a product with its original nature changed by processing raw materials, it includes not only the manufacture of a product with its large capacity, but also the manufacture of a product convenient for storage, sale, consumption, etc. by subdividing and packaging it, and therefore, it does not go beyond the prior meaning of ‘manufacturing' or ‘manufacturing facilities' even if it is included in ‘manufacturing facilities' under the provisions of the attached Table of this case.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff recognized that it is not temporarily packed for simple transportation convenience on the package of this case covered by plastic containers. However, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff’s application of the packaging of this case to the salted fish containers of this case on October 2013 does not meet the taxation requirements of the remainder of the imposition of value-added tax except for the imposition of value-added tax in the second quarter of 2013 among the dispositions in this case. However, in full view of the purport of the arguments in subparagraphs B through 10, the Plaintiff purchased a package package package package for 50,000 won from OOOtech Co., Ltd. until May 31, 2013, 200 less than 2 months, less than 8 months, less than 20,0000, more than 50,0000, more than 20,0000, more than 10,0000,0000, more than 21,000,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

November 17, 2016