Gwangju District Court 2008Guhap3784 (Law No. 97.02)

early 208 Mine1053 (Law No. 26, 2008)

Whether a reverse building business operator is eligible for duty-free oil supply

If farmers, fishermen, etc. are supplied with tax-free oil and used for any other purpose, the amount of tax reduction or exemption and traffic tax can be collected. The plaintiffs do not constitute farmers, fishermen, etc. subject to tax-free oil supply.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder 9/10 shall be assessed against the defendants, respectively, in the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 3,176,160 on January 2007 with respect to Plaintiff YA for the first term of 2007, and imposition of KRW 5,641,150 on January 1, 2007 with respect to Plaintiff EA for the first term of 207, imposition of KRW 6,041,120 on Plaintiff EA for the first term of 2007, imposition of KRW 47,780 for the first term of 2007, and imposition of KRW 47,780 for the second term of 207, and imposition of KRW 9,78,720 for the first term of 207 with respect to Plaintiff YA for the second term of 207, and imposition of KRW 47,780 for the second term of 207 with respect to the second term of YA for the second term of 207 (the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of imposition with respect to all of the above taxation).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고 정○○은 전남 ○○군 ○○면 ☆☆리 533-1에서 '◆◆물산'이라는 상호로, 원고 이AA는 전남 ○○군 ○○면 ○○리 733-10에서 '□□물산'이라는 상호로, 원고 이◎◎은 전남 ○○군 ○○면 ○○리 978-1에서 '○○수산'이라는 상호로, 원고 정◇◇은 전남 ○○군 ○○면 ○○리 1006에서 '△△수산'이라는 상호로 각 해조류가공업을 영위하고 있다.

나. 원고들은 미역건조업자는 면세유 공급대상에 해당하지 아니하여 면세유를 공급 받거나 미역건조업에 면세유를 사용할 수 없음에도, 전남 ○○군 약산면 ▼▼리 어촌계장 방일만, 장광용 및 전남 ○○군 금당면 ▲▲리 어촌계장 송▽▽와 공모하여 각 허위의 미역양식어업권 행사계약을 체결한 후 위 각 행사계약서를 ○○군 수산업협동조합에 제출하는 방법으로, 원고 정○○은 2004. 3. 19.경부터 2007. 6. 8.경까지 55회에 걸쳐 면세유 128,600L를, 원고 이AA는 2004. 6. 4.경부터 2007. 5. 31.경까지 65회에 걸쳐 면세유 274,200L를, 원고 이◎◎은 2004. 3. 2.경부터 2007. 7. 11.경까지 157회에 걸쳐 면세유 296,202L를, 원고 정◇◇은 2004. 6. 2.경부터 2007. 7. 18.경까지 96회에 걸쳐 면세유 486,000L를 각 공급받아 미역건조용으로 사용하였다.

C. On February 6, 2008, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 106-2(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Plaintiffs by deeming that the above tax-free oil was illegally leaked to the Plaintiffs; (b) applied Article 106-2(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to impose traffic tax and value

D. On September 18, 2009, the defendant revoked all the disposition of imposition of the remaining traffic tax and the value-added tax (this is imposed before the enactment of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) except for the imposition of each of the instant dispositions on September 18, 2009 during the trial proceeding, and the plaintiffs withdraw the lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition of imposition revoked.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

Article 106-2(8) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) newly established Article 106-2(8) of the same Act. Thus, each of the instant dispositions is lawful in light of Article 106-2(8) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006), each of the instant dispositions was first imposed pursuant to Article 106-2(5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 31, 2007), and each of the instant dispositions was amended by the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to Article 106-2(8) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007).

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

First of all, the issue of the instant disposition is to determine whether to allow the modification of the grounds for each disposition of this case.

Since the subject matter of a taxation disposition lawsuit is objective existence of the tax amount determined by the tax authority, the tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the relevant disposition, or exchange and change the reasons within the scope that maintains the identity of the disposition, and it does not necessarily mean that the tax authority can determine the legitimacy of the disposition or claim only the reasons for the disposition, based on the data at the time of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8796, May 16, 1997).

In this case, I will take part in the above legal principles.

Each disposition of this case is based on Article 106-2 (5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007) with respect to the value-added tax illegally reduced or exempted by the plaintiffs. Even if the grounds for each disposition of this case were to be based on Article 106-2 (5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006), it is merely a reflection of the defendant's opinion on the interpretation of statutes, which is the tax authority, to support the legitimacy of each disposition of this case, and if the grounds for each disposition of this case were to be modified by changing the existing opinion to Article 106-2 (5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) and it is presumed that the plaintiffs were to have been illegally reduced or exempted from the scope of the disposition of this case.

In addition, if each of the dispositions of this case is not permitted due to the change of grounds for the disposition beyond the scope of identity of the disposition, the defendant should cancel the respective dispositions of this case and renew the same disposition in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and it would also be desirable from the standpoint of the plaintiffs to make an unreasonable repetition of the procedures.

shall not be effective.

Therefore, according to the facts acknowledged above, since the plaintiffs were not farmers and fishermen but illegally reduced or exempted from the value-added tax by using the right to purchase tax-free petroleum, the dispositions of this case under Article 106-2 (8) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007) is lawful, and the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation thereof shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by misunderstanding this conclusion, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the plaintiffs' claims are revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 99, 102, and 105 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to