The case holding that even if an agricultural cooperative did not submit a payment report of goods price, etc. to the competent tax office under Article 66 of the former Corporate Tax Act, the additional tax cannot be imposed on the basis of the principal tax.

According to Article 4 (2) 6 of the Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, the income and profits of the cooperative established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act shall be exempted from corporate tax and income tax. According to Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which shows that this Act takes precedence over this Act, the business and assets of the agricultural cooperative shall be exempted from all taxes and charges except customs and goods taxes. Thus, even if the Plaintiff Cooperative established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act did not submit a report on the payment of goods, etc. in accordance with Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act to the Defendant tax office, even if the Plaintiff Cooperative did not submit the report on the payment of the goods, etc. in accordance with Article 66

Article 4 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act (Law No. 2125), Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu93 delivered on July 11, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 1021Da10221 delivered on July 11, 197, Supreme Court Decision 202Nu233 delivered on July 21, 197, Supreme Court Decision 73Nu151 delivered on March 12, 1974

Heading-gun Agricultural Cooperatives

The Director of the Gangwon District Office

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu93 delivered on July 11, 1972

The disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 211,264 and additional tax of KRW 21,126 on the plaintiff of June 30, 1970 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant through the remand.

The same shall apply to the order.

The fact that the Defendant imposed penalty tax amounting to KRW 21,126 on the Plaintiff on June 30, 1970, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit to the Defendant the payment report, such as the price of goods, under Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act, and the penalty tax amounting to KRW 21,264, and the penalty tax amounting to KRW 21,126, respectively, was

However, under Article 4 (1) 6 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the Plaintiff’s legal representative was exempted from corporate tax and business tax pursuant to Article 4 (1) 6 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. However, the Defendant imposed corporate tax amount of KRW 512,90 on June 11, 1970 and requested the Defendant to conduct re-audit of the amount of KRW 25,00 per month. The Plaintiff’s legal representative stated that the remaining claims were dismissed (if this request for review and reexamination were made, it is also dismissed), but it is unlawful. According to Article 66(1) through (3) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, all domestic legal representatives were obliged to submit a report on payment, such as the price of goods, to the Government, which is subject to Article 6(1)6 of the said Act, and that the other party who received such report would be exempt from corporate tax and the order of tax administration, and thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative would not be exempt from corporate tax imposed under Article 97 subparag. 16 of the said Act. 97 of the said Act.

Therefore, since it is apparent that the tax disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff with the additional corporate tax that is not imposed by the agricultural cooperative is unlawful, the Plaintiff’s claim of the principal lawsuit seeking the revocation of the objection is justifiable without any determination as to the remaining dispute of the Defendant. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the Defendant who lost all the costs of the lawsuit before and after the remand.

Judges Choi Yong-gu (Presiding Judge)