Ulsan District Court 2012Guhap1802 ( December 05, 2013)

The imposition of traffic tax illegally deducted is legitimate, but the imposition of penalty tax is illegal.

The imposition of principal tax on traffic tax and value-added tax, which are deducted from the forged and altered tax-free coophone, is legitimate, but there is a justifiable reason that it is not attributable to the failure to verify the authenticity of the tax, so the imposition of penalty tax against insincereful payment is illegal.

Article 17 of the Traffic Tax Act shall be deducted and refunded.

2014Nu83 The revocation of disposition imposing traffic tax, etc.

Appellant and Appellant

2. AA Energy Co., Ltd.

- Appellants

1. ○○ Metropolitan City Mayor; 2. ○○ Head of tax office;

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Guhap1802 Decided December 5, 2013

June 18, 2014

July 23, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

"The imposition of value-added tax as stated in the column of traffic tax, education tax, and education tax on September 5, 201 and October 4, 2011 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office on the following: (a) the imposition of value-added tax as stated in the column of "the remaining tax on the list of value-added tax" on November 11, 201; and (b) the imposition of driving tax on the Plaintiff AA Energy Co., Ltd. on September 8, 201 and October 5, 201 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office, as stated in the column of "the remaining tax on the list of value-added tax" on the attached Table 1, shall be revoked on September 5, 2011; and (c) the purport of the appeal is as follows."

A. The plaintiffs

"The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On September 5, 2011 and October 4, 2011, the part of "the principal tax out of the amount of traffic tax, education tax, and the amount of remaining tax on the list of education tax" as stated in the "amount of remaining tax" in attached Table 1 to the Plaintiff AA Co., Ltd., and on November 11, 201, and "amount of remaining tax in the imposition of value-added tax" as stated in the "amount of remaining tax on the list of value-added tax" as stated in the "amount of remaining tax in the attached Table 1 of the imposition of value-added tax" shall be revoked, and on September 8, 2011 and October 5, 2011 by the Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City Mayor, the part of "the principal tax out of the imposition of remaining tax on the Plaintiff AA Energy Co., Ltd." as stated in the "amount of remaining tax on the attached Table 2."

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff and the defendants repeat the same argument in the court of first instance, and even if examining the arguments and reasons partly supplemented in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified only for the part that seeks revocation of the imposition disposition of penalty tax in good faith among each of the dispositions in this case, and the part that seeks revocation of the imposition disposition of principal tax, such as traffic tax, education tax, value-added tax, and driving tax, shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as it is without merit,