(a) Whether Article 74-3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act on the collection of input tax amount to be deducted is valid where a general taxable person is changed to a special taxable person

(b) Whether the special provisions on taxation apply where a person who has been changed from a general taxable person to a special taxable person files a value-added tax return as a general taxable person and is not notified of the conversion of type of taxation

A. Article 74-3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides that when a general taxable person changes to a special taxable person, an input tax amount deducted for inventory and depreciable assets shall be paid in addition to the payable tax amount. It is merely that Article 36(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount that cannot be deducted pursuant to the purport of Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be collected by deducting in advance the input tax amount, and it does not provide a new taxation requirement without any delegation basis. Thus, it cannot be said that a new legal provision goes beyond the scope

(b) the fact that a special taxable person reports value-added tax to a general taxable person without reporting the waiver of the special taxation cannot exclude the application of the provisions of the special taxable person, nor does it be converted to a special taxable person on the ground that he was not notified of the conversion of the type of taxation.

(a) Articles 36, 17(1)(b) and 25 and 30(a) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 74-3(3)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5412 delivered on September 11, 1990 (dong) b. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1469 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989,1383)

Park Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The director of the Seocho District Tax Office (the director of the District Tax Office before correction)

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14894 delivered on April 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in case where a general taxable person under Article 74-3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is changed to a special taxable person, the court below held that the amount of the input tax to be paid in addition to the amount of the tax shall be collected in the case where the deducted input tax amount is deducted in advance by delegation under Article 36 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and that the amount of the input tax should be collected in the case where the deducted input tax amount is deducted by delegation under Article 17 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and that the new tax requirement shall not be provided without any ground for delegation by the mother law. Thus, the judgment of the court below is correct and correct as a result of the judgment of return by a party member, and there is no ground for arguments.

(2) Article 30(1) and (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 74-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a special taxable person shall file a waiver report of the special taxation 10 days prior to the commencement of the taxable period in order to be subject to the provisions of the general taxable person without the application of the provisions of the special taxation person, and Article 25 of the Act on the Special Taxation shall apply to the period prescribed in Article 74-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act regardless of the notification of the conversion of the taxable period if the general taxable person is converted to the special taxable person. Thus, the application of the provisions of the special taxation person cannot be ruled out, and the fact that the special taxable person filed a return of the special taxation person without filing a waiver report of the special taxation cannot be converted

(3) The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principle of the theory of the lawsuit. The appeal is dismissed without the grounds of appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)