Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18369 (Law No. 13, 2013)

Whether a general taxi transport business entity has used the reduced amount of value-added tax.

The reduced amount of value-added tax paid by general taxi transport business entities shall not be used within six months from the end of the due date for filing a return, due to the delay in all individual negotiations with the company trade union, and thus, the value-added tax shall be collected additionally on the ground that

Article 106-4 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Nu1898 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Correction

AA Industry Transport Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18369 Decided June 13, 2013

November 28, 2013

December 26, 2013

The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

A. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 40,286,710 on June 2, 2008 against the Plaintiff of KRW 31,880,990 in excess of KRW 31,880 in the imposition disposition of KRW 1,207 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 4/5 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant living together.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 40,286,710 on September 5, 2008 against the Plaintiff in 2007 and the imposition of KRW 12,256,770 on September 5, 2008 shall be revoked in entirety.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 4, 5, and 1, 2, 5, and 8 (including the number, hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. In accordance with Article 106-4(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff, who is a general taxi transport business entity, filed a return of value-added tax by reducing 50% of the amount of each value-added tax payable as follows. The head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government inspected the actual use of the amount of the value-added tax reduced for the first and final portion in 2007, and notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff did not use part of the amount of the reduced tax as follows.

B. Based on the notice, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount of the reduced value-added tax of KRW 40,286,710 (including additional tax) in 207 as of June 2, 2008, and the amount of value-added tax of KRW 12,256,770 (including additional tax) in 2007 as of September 5, 2007, respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition on August 29 and November 24, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on April 28, 2009.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

In 2007, the Plaintiff used the reduction amount of value-added tax for the first period, the final amount, and the second period portion by either directly or by including it in the basic level, or by using it for improvement in treatment.

(2) Defendant

If the amount of value-added tax is included in the basic pay, it shall be stated in the expenditure account that enables workers to grasp the total amount of expenditure, and if the amount is used for improvement of treatment, the method of use, etc. shall be decided autonomously by workers. The amount claimed by the plaintiff is not recognized as being used under Article 106-4 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the amount of value-added tax reduced shall be used within six months from the end of the time limit for the return of value-added tax, and since the plaintiff has used it after the expiration of the time limit, it shall not be used under Article 106-4 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

B. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the testimony of Gap's evidence 7, 8, 10 through 13, 16, 24 through 28, Eul's evidence 6, 16, and 17, and witness KimCC of the first instance trial, and witness Gangwon-D of the first instance trial before transmission.

(1) When the Act on Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption was amended on August 4, 1995 by Act No. 4952 on August 4, 1995 to reduce 50/100 of the amount of the value-added tax paid to general taxi transport business operators under the former Automobile Transport Business Act, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation (the current Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the same applies hereinafter) intends to provide support to improve the poor treatment of taxi drivers throughout the country, taking into account that the purpose of the amendment is to provide the direction and supervision of the relevant business operators and relevant organizations so that the amount of the value-added tax can be used in line with the purpose of the opening, and to instruct them to voluntarily determine and enforce the amount of the value-added tax through consultation between the labor and management for specific and methods of use, etc.

(B) After that, the provision was newly established that "the value-added tax reduction is used for the improvement of the treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation," which was amended by Act No. 7322 on Dec. 31, 2004, and enforced on Jan. 1, 2005," and "the value-added tax reduction amount" was used for the improvement of the treatment and welfare of regular taxi drivers, as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation prepared guidelines for the use of the tax reduction amount of the value-added tax (the Ministry of Construction and Transportation guidelines of April 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation provided that a taxi transportation business entity shall use the full amount of the value-added tax reduction amount for the purpose of improving the treatment and welfare of workers, and that a majority of workers shall pay the full amount of the value-added tax to employees in cash, such as basic salary, allowances, and the method and timing of cash payment to employees.

(2) Progress of agreement between the Plaintiff and its trade union

(A) Current status of trade unions

Since the mid-190s in which the system to reduce the value-added tax on taxi transportation business entities was implemented, and the labor union organized by the employees who drive a taxi of a company was divided into the National taxi trade union affiliated with the Korean Federation of taxi trade unions (hereinafter referred to as the "National taxi trade union") and the National taxi trade union affiliated with the former, which differs from the former and the former. The number of members of the National taxi trade union affiliated with the National taxi trade union affiliated with the National taxi trade union (hereinafter referred to as the "Local Trade Union"); the number of members of the former National Housing Trade Union affiliated with the Democratic Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as the "National Housing Trade Union") was increased, and the latter was a member of the regional trade union, but around 197, the labor union of the Plaintiff was established by the private housing company and changed its affiliation to the private housing.

(B) the Wage Agreement, 1995

1) On September 2, 1995, the 1995 wage agreement was concluded between the Seoul taxi business council and the Seoul taxi business council, which was delegated by the 163 unit labor union under its control and delegated by the 163 unit labor union, with the amount of monthly wage from 630,000 won to 697,513 won, which included 34,328 won out of the added value-added tax reduction amount.

2) On December 31, 1995, the Seoul taxi business council and the regional trade union delegated by 16 transportation companies, including the Plaintiff, raised the basic salary and allowances in concluding the wage agreement in December 31, 1995, and calculated the direct benefits of the virtual tax reduction and exemption (However, the wage agreement states that the specific amount reflected in the wage is not specified), and indirect benefits are used by the private business operators to promote the welfare of its members.

3) Meanwhile, the case of applying for arbitration of labor disputes (95 dispute-126,128) commenced since five companies established unit labor unions under the regional trade union (not including the plaintiff) and the regional trade union did not conclude collective bargaining in order to conclude the wage agreement in 1995. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Labor Relations Commission included 67,513 won based on the wage agreement in 1995, which included 34,328 won in 67,513 won, and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax reduced in 697,941 won and 730,52 won and 611 won, which included 13,12 won, value-added tax among the amount of the increased tax, 206, 207, 305, 207, 375, 405, 2758, 2758, 367, 305 of the increased tax amount, including the total amount of the increased wage in 1995.

(C) the Wage Agreement, 1996

The Seoul taxi business council and the regional trade union delegated by the 21 transportation companies including the plaintiff (including the companies that were subject to arbitration award among them) to enter into the wage agreement in November 1996 as of November 4, 1996, clearly stated that the direct benefit of value-added tax reduction and exemption was included in the wage (However, the wage agreement did not specify the specific amount reflected in the wage) and that the indirect benefit would be utilized to promote the welfare of the members of the association (Article 26(4)), and that the transportation companies, separately from this, deposited the welfare fund of KRW 40,000 per month into the association with the union expenses for the improvement of the welfare of the members of the association (Article 59), "Article 59" (d).

The plaintiff has entered into an individual wage agreement with the plaintiff's trade union according to the result of the wage agreement between the Seoul taxi business association and the local trade union, which is a higher-level organization each year. Since 2001, there was no express provision on the amount of value-added tax reduced.

(E) Agreement and implementation between the Plaintiff and the Trade Union

1) The agreement of November 14, 2006

In around 2006, there was a dispute over whether the amount of value-added tax reductions of 34,328 won is included in the amount of value-added tax reductions of 34,328 won in this grade in accordance with the wage agreement in 1995, and the conclusion of wage agreement was delayed, and the plaintiff agreed on November 14, 2006 between the plaintiff's trade union and the plaintiff's trade union as of November 14, 2006, and the amount of value-added tax reductions of 33,000 won per worker on a provisional basis from November 2006 to June 207, but before November 2006, the plaintiff shall pay 33,000 won per worker on a provisional basis as to the amount of value-added tax reductions of 207 and the amount of value-added tax reductions of 207 as of November 206.

2) The agreement of November 1, 2007

On November 1, 2007, and until December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 50,000,000 won per worker in addition to the previous wage for each worker from November 2007 to March 2009, and to pay 50,000,000 won from the reduction of the value-added tax for the first period of 2007 under the name of workers' meeting.

3) The Agreement of June 20, 2008

On June 20, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed with the Plaintiff’s trade union in addition to the agreement on November 1, 2007, as follows.

(1) In principle, full cash shall be paid for the amount of value-added tax reduced from January 2, 2007 to December 2008.

② The Plaintiff has been paying the abated value-added tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but on November 1, 2007, the labor-management council agreed to pay 50,000 won per worker per 17 months from January 2007 to December 2008 in order to meet the due date of the abated value-added tax which has been paid during the period from January 1, 2007 to December 12, 2008: Provided, That the difference is the indirect cost, the welfare welfare fund for union members, and the wage.

(3) During the agreement period, civil or criminal responsibilities for the request for the reduction of value-added tax shall be charged.

Labor and management shall not implement the agreed matters in good faith.

(4) The terms of this Agreement shall apply retroactively to 2007, 11.1, and 100:

4) Implementation of agreements

The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s agreement dated 20 June 20, 2008 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “two agreements”) respectively.

Pursuant to the agreement, it has been paid 50,00 won per worker to an individual from 2007, 11, to 50,000 won per month as follows (as a result of each agreement of this case, each of the agreements of this case has been paid from 1.3.209, 2009, 3, and 3 months for each person (50,000 won per 50,000 won = 1.50,00 won) on March 20, 2009, and on March 5, 2009, and 15. (80,000 won) on two occasions as follows: On the other hand, with respect to workers retired during the middle, they have been settled and paid in proportion to their working hours.)

(f) In calculating the Plaintiff’s amount of value-added tax reduced, the Defendant deemed that the portion scheduled for the first period of 2007 was not used within six months from the end of the time limit for filing the return, and that the amount used was paid to the employees for 14,717,625 on three occasions every month from November 2008 to January 2008, and that the additional amount was paid for 20,253,880 won, and for the portion scheduled for the second period of 207 from February 2008 to April 208, the Defendant deemed that the amount used was paid to the employees for 16,092,480 won, and that each of the previous employees was paid for 16,092,480 won and the amount of value-added tax or the amount of tax reduced was not considered to have been paid for 30,000 won each of the previous employees.

C. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1 shall be as specified in the relevant statutes.

D. Determination

(1) Article 100-2 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, amended by Act No. 4952 of August 4, 1995, introduced a system that reduces 50/100 of the value-added tax payable to enable a general taxi transport business entity, who is not subject to the payment of value-added tax, to use the whole amount of value-added tax to improve the treatment and welfare of his/her employees, for wage increase. However, unlike its original purpose, the tax reduction amount of value-added tax has been already imposed on the general taxi transport business entity due to labor-management problems such as the reduction of the value-added tax, and the amount of value-added tax to be imposed on the welfare expenses that the general taxi transport business entity had previously borne, and Article 106-4(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004, which prohibits the general taxi transport business entity from using the whole amount of value-added tax for improvement of treatment and welfare of his/her employees.

In light of the legislative intent of the system of reducing the amount of value-added tax for general taxi transport business operators and the legislative process, amendment details, etc. of the relevant regulations, and the remaining amount of value-added tax shall be deemed to have been paid by paying only one of the amount of value-added tax reduced, and the amount of the value-added tax already paid between the employees, etc., is in dispute over the amount of the amount of the value-added tax reduced which has been paid between the employees, and such part shall be deemed to have been paid as wages, etc., unless there are special circumstances that make it possible to evaluate that the whole amount of the value-added tax reduced was actually used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi transport business operators, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax reduced which is deemed to have been paid by mutual agreement between the employees and employers shall not be deemed to have been used for improving the treatment or welfare of general taxi transport business operators, and

"(B) The amount of direct benefits out of the amount of value-added tax reduced for 195 shall be calculated by including the amount of wages for 197 years when the Plaintiff entered into an individual wage agreement for 16 transportation companies including the Plaintiff and the regional trade union to which the Plaintiff’s trade union belongs, and the amount of value-added tax reduced for 197 years, and the amount of indirect benefits out of the amount of value-added tax reduced for 2 years after the conclusion of the agreement on the amount of wages for 197 years which the Plaintiff entered into with the Plaintiff and the regional trade union would have the same provisions in the wage agreement for 196, but it is difficult to conclude that the collective agreement or wage agreement after 20 years included the amount of value-added tax reduced for 195 and 196, and it is difficult to conclude that the amount of value-added tax reduced for 2 years after the conclusion of the agreement on the amount of wage reduced for 10 years and 3 years after the conclusion of the agreement on the amount of wage reduced for 20 years.

(2) Determination of the amount of value-added tax reduced used by the Plaintiff

If the number of value-added taxes used by the Plaintiff is determined by the foregoing method, it is as follows:

(A) 50,000 won per month paid to an individual for 17 months from November 2007

The plaintiff paid 50,00 won per month to an individual employee for the period from November 2007 to 17 (for actual years, from November 2007, to 2009, 5), and the total amount was about 92,522,950, as seen earlier, and according to the agreement of this case, the amount was directly paid to an employee for the amount of value-added tax reduction for the year 2007 and 2008 (for the year 2007 and 2008, the amount was divided into the following table if the plaintiff calculates the amount of value-added tax reduction for each month and each quarter for the period (for the year 2007 and 24 months).

(B) 5 million won for meal expenses

According to the agreement of this case, the fact that the first half of the value-added tax reduction in 2007 provided that five million won shall be paid in the name of the worker's meal expenses, as seen above, and that according to the above agreement, the plaintiff paid five million won out of the amount of the amount of the first half of the fixed value-added tax reduction in 2007 on December 3, 2007, to the worker as a meal expenses, shall be included in the amount of the reduced value-added tax for the first half of the year 2007.

(C) As to the amount asserted by the Plaintiff

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) According to each wage calculation table attached to the wage agreement of 196, 5 January 1996, 196 and 198 of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (126,198), the Plaintiff determined that the amount of value-added tax reduction of 34,328 won is included in the amount of five companies' wage increase under the Seocho Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Plaintiff is not a party to the arbitration award, but is a company belonging to the above regional trade union, which includes 34,328 won in the basic salary level of 1995 that the Plaintiff paid to the worker, like the above arbitration award, can be seen as including 34,328 won in the amount of value-added tax reduction, and each wage calculation table attached to each of the wage agreements of 1996, 201, 2005 and 2008, and the basic salary that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff trade union paid to the individual should be included in the amount of value-added tax reduction of 34,209, and the basic salary reduction of 31,394.

B) Of the 33,000 won that the Plaintiff paid to an individual every month in accordance with the labor-management agreement signed on November 14, 2006, the amount paid from 1,007 to June 2007 should be deemed as the amount of value-added tax reduced for the first period of 2007.

C) The welfare fund that the Plaintiff paid in the amount of KRW 400,000 per month to a trade union from March 5, 2007 to November, 13, 2007 is paid as the amount of reduced value-added tax for the first and second years of 2007.

must be viewed.

2) Determination

A) As to the first argument

"갑 제24 내지 31호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고에게 적용되는 1995년，1996년，2001년, 2005년，2008년의 각 임금협정서(갑 제24 내지 28호증)에 첨부된 각 임금산정표상 원고가 근로자에게 지급하는 기본급은 1995년 392,480원，1996 년 392,480원, 20이년 431,850원, 2005년 521,000원，2008년 615,000원으로 순차 증가 된 사실，원고와 원고 노동조합은 2009. 9. 30. 부가가치세 경감세액의 지급방법에 관 하여2009. 1.부터 2009. 6.월까지는 매월 6만 원씩，2009. 7.부터는 1인당 8만 원씩지급하되, 단 차액은 임금, 후생복리비 및 제 간접비에 포함되어 지급된 것으로 하며， 임금에 포함되어 지급된 것으로 한다는 것은 근로자 1인당 매월 34,328원이 임금이 포함되어 지급되었다는 것을 의미한다'는 내용의 노사합의를 하였고，2010. 12. 31. 원고 가 근로자 개인에게 1인당 매월 95,252원씩의 부가가치세 경감세액을 지급하기로 하면 서，，부가가치세 경감세액 중 임금에 40,872원이 포함된 것으로 하되, 위 금액은 임금 에 기히 포함된 34,328원이 포함된 금액'이라는 내용의 노사합의를 하였으며，2011. 3. 31.에도 위 2010. 12. 31.자 노사합의와 같은 내용의 노사합의를 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.",그러나 한편, 위 (1)의 (나)항에서 판시한 바와 같이，이 사건 각 합의에 이르게 된 경위에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 각 합의는 1995년도 및 1996년도 임금협정에 따라 임금인상분에 포함되어 계산되었던 부가가치세 경감세액 상당액이 적어도 2007년도부터는 부가가치세 경감세액의 지급액 명목으로 임금에 포함되어 있지 아니함을 전제로 한 것 이므로, 이 사건 각 합의에 의하여 임금에 포함되어 지급된 것으로 보기로 한 부가가 치세 경감세액 상당액은 실질적으로 근로자의 처우개선이나 복지향상에 사용된 것으로 평가될 수 없는 점에 다가，위 증거 및 인정 사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사 정，즉 1995년도 및 1996년도 임금협정에서도 부가가치세 경감세액 중 임금에 포함하여 계산된 금액은 명시되지 않은 점，서울특별시지방 노동위원회의 1996. 1. 5.자 중재 재정(95쟁의126, 198)은 원고가 그 당사자가 아니므로 위 중재재정에서 근로자의 임금 인상액 중 34,328원의 부가가치세 경감세액이 포함된 것으로 결정하였다고 하더라도， 그에 따라 원고의 경우에도 1995년부터 위와 같은 금액의 부가가치세 경감세액이 임금에 포함되어 지급되었다고 볼 수는 없는 점，설령 1995년 및 1996년에 위와 같은 금액이 임금에 포함되어 지급된 것으로 볼 수 있다고 하더라도，20이년 임금협정 이후에 는 부가가치세 경감세액의 지급 여부 및 그 방법에 관하여 아무런 규정이 없으므로， 기본급에 위 금액의 부가가치세 경감세액이 당연히 포함되어 지급되었다고 보기는 어 려운 점，이와 같이 부가가치세 경감세액이 임금에 포함되어 지급되었는지 여부를 둘러싸고 다툼이 있어 이 사건 각 합의에 이른 점，원고와 원고 노동조합은 2009. 9. 30.이후 부가가치세 경감세액 중 34,328원이 기본급에 포함되어 지급된 것으로 본다는 내 용의 노사합의를 하였으나, 이는 이 사건에서 문제된 2007년 및 2008년 부가가치세 경감세액과는 무관한 것이므로, 이를 들어 그 이전에도 위 금액이 임금에 포함되어 지급 되었다고 해석할 수는 없는 점 등의 사정을 보태어 보면，2007년 및 2008년 부가가치세 경감세액 중 근로자 1인당 매월 34,328원씩의 금액이 근로자 개인에게 지급된 기본급 중에 포함되어 지급되었다고 볼 수 없고，또 위 금액이 근로자의 처우개선이나 복지향상에 사용된 것으로 평가할 수 있는 특별한 사정이 있었다고 볼 수도 없으므로， 위 금액은 2007년 및 2008년 부가가치세 경감세액의 사용액으로 인정할 수 없다. 따라서 원고의 첫 번째 주장은 이유 없다，

B) As to the second argument

The fact that the Plaintiff made an agreement that the Plaintiff should pay the amount of value-added tax reduction of 33,00 won per employee per month in addition to the previous wage, as a provisional result from November 14, 2006 between the Plaintiff’s trade union, and from November 2006 to June 2007, that the amount of value-added tax reduction of 33,00 won per employee should be paid in addition to the previous wage is as seen above, and the Plaintiff paid the amount of value-added tax reduction of 33,00 won per month to the employee under the above agreement from November 20 to October 23, 2007.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the labor-management agreement No. 13, and the Plaintiff’s payment of about 46 million won among the amount of value-added tax reduced in 206 to employees. The above labor-management agreement at the time of November 14, 2006 was planned to be implemented until December 31, 2006 [Article 106-4(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 732, Dec. 31, 2004; 8146, Dec. 30, 2006) is reasonable to deem that the amount of value-added tax reduced in 20,000 for 20 years and 20 years and 20 years and 7 years and 30 years and 20, respectively, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid the amount of value-added tax reduced in 20,000,000 won and 20.

Therefore, the plaintiff's second argument is without merit.

C) As to the third argument

The wage agreement of 196 provides for the provision on the amount of value-added tax reduction (Article 26(4)) separate from the provision on the amount of value-added tax reduction (Article 26(4) and that the company deposits the amount of 400,000 won per month into a cooperative with the association expenses for the improvement of the welfare of its members (Article 59) can be acknowledged that the plaintiff paid the amount of 40,000 won per month to the labor union as a welfare fund in consideration of the overall purport of the arguments. Meanwhile, in light of the provisions and contents of the above wage agreement, the above welfare fund is provided for separate items from the amount of value-added tax reduction, and it appears that the amount of value-added tax reduction should be paid separately from the amount of value-added tax reduction, and according to the new provision of this case, it prohibits the act of using the amount of tax reduction before the reduction of value-added tax, and even if the plaintiff did not pay the amount of value-added tax, it is difficult to say that the above amount of tax reduction should be paid by cash.

Therefore, the third argument of the plaintiff is without merit.

(3) Whether the Plaintiff’s use under Article 106-4(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act can be seen as the value-added tax reduction amount used six months after the date of expiration of the due date for return

According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid the amount of value-added tax reduction in 2007 and 2008 after November 2007, and can be deemed to have used the whole amount of the first term portion and the first term portion among the amount of value-added tax reduction in 2007, and part of the amount of the second term portion after six months after the end of the payment deadline for value-added tax return. However, the plaintiff, on the other hand, determined the amount of the amount of the value-added tax reduction in 207, payment time and payment method according to the wage negotiations of superior organizations, but did not use the amount of value-added tax reduction because they did not enter into such negotiations but did not wait for the result of the negotiations, and made each agreement on the use of the amount of value-added tax reduction in 207 as of November 1 and 2008 and June 20, 2007 through individual negotiations with the plaintiff trade union, and paid each of the above agreements to the workers from November 2007 to May 5, 2005, 2007.

As above, the Plaintiff’s failure to use the value-added tax for the year 2007 within 6 months from the closing date of the deadline for the return and payment of value-added tax is due to the delay in all of the negotiations between the higher employers’ association and the trade union and the Plaintiff’s trade union, and the Plaintiff’s delay in payment has an inevitable circumstance where it is difficult to hold the Plaintiff liable for the delay in payment. The Plaintiff’s delay in payment is difficult to see that it is in breach of the legislative intent of the additional collection system because it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s delay in payment for the benefit of his/her own, and it is difficult to see that it is against the legislation purpose of the additional collection system, since the Plaintiff actually made an agreement between the labor and management and completed payment, and did not comply with the said six months, the Plaintiff’s additional collection would result in double burden by being subject to the additional collection even if the Plaintiff paid the value-added tax reduction on the ground of the agreement, and it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s delay in payment as 20.

E. Sub-committee

(1) The amount used by the Plaintiff for the improvement of treatment and welfare of workers out of the total amount planned and finalized in 2007 and the amount of value added tax for the second period of value added tax in 2007 is indicated as follows:

Classification

Reduction Tax Amount

Amount of defendant fixed-use

Final Use Amount

Grounds

The first installment of 2007

26,241,560

0

10,882,823

The sum of the corresponding periods in the table of paragraph (2)(a) above

For the first period of 2007

24,594,530

20,253,880

15,637,872

Of the tables referred to in paragraph (2)(a) above, 10,637,872 + 5,000,000 for the meal expenses referred to in paragraph (1)(b) above.

The amount scheduled for the second period in 2007

25,558,630

16,092,480

10,567,886

D. (2) The sum of the corresponding period amounts in the table of subsection (a).

(2) If a reasonable amount of tax is calculated on the premise of the above "determined amount of tax", it would be KRW 31,880,990 of value-added tax for the first time in 2007 as stated in the separate sheet of account, and value-added tax for the second time in 2007 as value-added tax for the second time in 2007.

(3) Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 31,880,90, which is a legitimate tax amount, in the imposition disposition of KRW 40,286,710 for the first year value-added tax in 2007, should be revoked unlawfully, and the imposition disposition of KRW 12,256,770 for the second year value-added tax in 2007 is lawful since it is within the legitimate tax amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the claim for payment shall be dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be partially different from this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.