logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.12.10 2014구합387
개별소비세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that runs the business of filling and selling liquefied petroleum gas for vehicle fuel under the trade name, “CELPPPPPPP” from January 12, 2012 to Jung-Eup.

B. From November 1, 2012 to November 20, 2012, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a survey on tracking the distribution process of fake petroleum products suspected of illegal distribution; (b) confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff, from May 201 to June 2012, 2012, shipped off the butane ordered to manufacture and wholesale business entities of liquefied petroleum gas, such as Zknex, into the tank (ship transporting liquefied petroleum gas), and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an act of manufacturing the individual consumption tax, deeming the Plaintiff’s act to constitute an act of manufacturing the taxable goods.

C. On June 3, 2013, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of KRW 4,469,342 in total amount of individual consumption tax and education tax (including additional tax; hereinafter “individual consumption tax, etc.”) on the amount of purchase of the pertinent professional plate and KRW 275 won per piece of professional plate (kg).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff is not a manufacturer of liquefied petroleum gas with facilities for mixing and manufacturing propane and but sells it at a place, other than a manufacturer’s manufacturing place.

arrow