Preliminary aluminium Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

April 20, 1982

The imposition of special consumption tax of KRW 87,235,96 against the plaintiff on December 1, 1980 and the imposition of KRW 28,538,160 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition disposition; and

The defendant does not dispute the facts that the plaintiff imposed 87,235,96 won of special consumption tax and 28,538,160 won of the same defense tax on December 1, 1980, on the electrical and electronic 35,404 won (the removal price of 199,850,830 won) manufactured and taken out by the plaintiff on October 1, 1980, on the taxable goods falling under Class 2 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, and on the fact that the plaintiff imposed 28,538,160 won of the special consumption tax on the plaintiff.

2. Assertion and determination

According to the Enforcement Rule of the Electric Appliances Safety Control Act and related documents, the plaintiff's attorney's assertion that the electric coffee and the electric coffee are completely distinguishable from each other in its form, structure, and main use. Although the electric coffee is not included in the category of the coffee, the defendant's act of imposing the special consumption tax and the same defense tax on the plaintiff is illegal because the said electric coffee produced by the plaintiff is included in the category of the coffee set. The defendant's main use of the electric liquor is ordinarily for the creation of coffee with water at home or office, which is included in the category of the coffee set under the Special Consumption Tax Act.

Therefore, according to Article 1 (6) of the Special Consumption Tax Act, the plaintiff's above-mentioned electricity and steel scrokes are used for the above-mentioned scrode of coffee, and the above-mentioned scrokes are used for the purpose of using the above-mentioned scromatic scrokes, so it is necessary to determine whether the pertinent goods constitute taxable goods under the Special Consumption Tax Act, regardless of their names, the form, use, nature, and other important characteristics of the goods. The above scromatic scrokes are used for each of the above-mentioned scromatic scrokes and so it is hard to see that the above scrokes and scrokes are used for the purpose of using the above scrofic scrofic scrofic scrofic scrofics as well as the above scrofic scrofic scrofic s.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the special consumption tax is justified, and it is decided as per the disposition that the plaintiff's claim for revocation is unlawful, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party at the expense of the losing party.

may 25, 1982

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)