The effects of the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Goods Tax Act that prescribe a new taxpayer without delegation by the mother law.

Article 3 of the Goods Tax Act does not provide that a person who brought taxable goods shall be liable to pay the goods in certain cases, but the provisions of Article 17(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act and Article 7-5(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Goods Tax Act provide that a person who brought taxable goods shall be liable to pay the goods shall be null and void as it provides a person who is substantially new, without delegation

Article 3 of the Goods Tax Act, Article 17(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act, Articles 7-5(3) and 7-5(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act

[Court Decision 200Na1488 delivered on July 1, 200

The Litigation Performers of the Ansan Tax Office shall be referred to as the Litigation Performers' rules, Mano-o, Mano-o

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu624 delivered on March 23, 1977

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 of the defendant litigation performer are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, under Article 3 of the Goods Tax Act, the court below held that the seller, manufacturer, and shipper of the taxable goods are liable for duty payment and provided a principle for the taxpayer. As to the shipper of the taxable goods, there is no exceptional provision on the taxpayer with duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to the goods in certain cases. Thus, the court below held that the manufacturer cannot be provided as the taxpayer with the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to the goods in certain cases pursuant to Article 17 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Goods Tax Act and Article 7-5 (3) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Goods Tax Act, each provision provides that the taxpayer shall be the taxpayer with the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the duty to pay the goods in certain cases.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)