Daejeon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-102565 ( April 12, 2017)

Whether it is against the binding force of the ruling

It is against the binding force of the re-examination decision that the disposition agency maintains the initial disposition against the judgment on the specific grounds for illegality of the disposition, that is, the order of the re-examination decision and its premise.

Articles 65, 80, and 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daejeon High Court-2017-Nu-1150 ( November 22, 2017)

Section AA

The director of the tax office

National Flag

2017.20

November 22, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

[Claim]

On the other hand, on May 20, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 82,102,670 for the Plaintiff on May 20, 2016, KRW 106,695,540 for the first period of value-added tax, KRW 7,875,00 for the education tax, KRW 136,190,560 for the traffic, energy, and environment tax for February 2013, and KRW 10,125,00 for the education tax for the Plaintiff on February 11, 2015, KRW 82,102,670 for the first period of value-added tax for the Plaintiff, KRW 106,695,540 for the traffic, energy, and environment tax for the month of January 2013, KRW 106,50 for the traffic, energy, and environment tax for the year of 2013, KRW 75,2016,3005.

【Purpose of Appeal】

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims shall be dismissed in entirety.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court’s explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court’s decision, except for a modification of the 7th to 10th to 18th (hereinafter “the part against the binding force of the ruling”) of the 7th judgment (hereinafter “the 13th to 10th (hereinafter “the 13th”) as follows. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The changed part

Whether “1) Whether it goes against the binding force of the ruling”

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 81 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016) provides that "Article 65 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply mutatis mutandis to a request for a trial"; Article 80 (1) and (2) provides that "the decision under Article 65 applicable mutatis mutandis in Article 81 shall be binding on the relevant administrative agency and, when a decision is made on a request for a trial, the relevant administrative agency shall immediately take necessary measures in accordance with the purport of the decision," and Article 65 (1) 3 provides that "when the request for a trial is deemed reasonable, the decision to cancel or correct the disposition which is the object of the request or make a decision on the necessary disposition."

Inasmuch as a reinvestigation decision, which is conducted in practice as a type of the decision on a request for a reexamination, is a modified decision made in accordance with the purport of the reinvestigation decision, the agency may conduct a reinvestigation in accordance with the purport of the reinvestigation decision and make a subsequent disposition to supplement the contents thereof. Therefore, it goes against the binding force of the reinvestigation decision (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37549, May 11, 2017) to maintain the initial disposition as it is against the determination on the specific reason for the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37549, May 11, 2017).

B) Facts of recognition

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are recognized in each entry of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 41 through 50.

(1) The Director of the Tax Tribunal made a decision of reinvestigation (hereinafter referred to as "decision of this case") on the original disposition of this case, based on the following determination:

(A) First of all, the Defendant concluded that the shipment slips submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be trusted in the transactional evidence, and thus, the Defendant sold it as non-farmerless materials to gas stations, etc. However, it is insufficient to conclude that the instant oil was not delivered to BB gas stations in light of the statement of Kim Jong-Un, a driver on the shipment slips.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff presented the sales details of the tax-free petroleum purchase card that the Plaintiff stored the instant oil in the gas station operated by himself and sold it to farmers as tax-free, and did not verify the fact despite the fact that it was necessary to verify the facts of farmers in the written decision of the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office's objection. The Plaintiff did not prove the relevance between the instant oil and the illegal distribution of tax-free oil and the possibility of tax evasion at all.

(다) 이에 주문으로서, 2013. 1.˜2. 중 이 사건 유류를 면세로 판매하였다고 제시한 면세유 전용 카드매출내역과 카드로 면세유를 결제한 농민들에 대하여 면세유 부정유통여부를 재조사하여 면세유 부정유통이 객관적으로 확인되는 금액에 대하여 과세매출누락액으로 보아 부가가치세 등의 과세표준 및 세액을 경정한다는 것이다.

(2) However, after going through the following reinvestigations after the decision of this case, the defendant judged that the oil of this case illegally distributed has no problem in the content of the initial investigation as the omitted sales amount, and maintained the original disposition of this case.

(A) On March 22, 2016, after the instant decision, the Defendant rendered each unit agricultural cooperative on March 22, 2016.

In relation to 99 farmers, the tax-free petroleum management ledger from 2012 to 2016, the individual tax-free petroleum purchase card transaction statement, production report registration record, cultivation records by heating machine use farmers, and the submission of data related to the purchase of tax-free petroleum by farmers such as tax-free petroleum purchase card account.

(나) 피고는 면세유 부정유통 근절방안으로 2015. 7. 1.부터 농업용 난방기 면세유가 경유에서 등유로 전환되어 그 이후부터 면세유 부정유통의 실효성이 감소된 점에 착안하여 조사대상기간인 2013. 1.˜2. 사이의 면세유류 구입카드 결제자 93명에 대한 2012년부터 2016년까지의 연도별 1・월 면세유 구입량을 비교한 결과, 2016. 1.˜2. 면세유 구입량이 현저하게 감소한 농민 38명을 확인하였다.

(C) On April 14, 2016, the Defendant, among 38 persons, inquired about the settlement account of tax-free petroleum purchase cards for the remaining 22 persons, excluding farmers who inquired about financial transaction information at the time of re-audit according to the Plaintiff’s initial objection.

(D) Around April 2016, the Defendant investigated 8 persons, including CCC, DD, EE, F, GF, GG, HH, JJ, KK, etc. on the basis of the data collected as above, as to whether there was an illegal distribution of duty-free oil. However, the Defendant did not obtain any specific answer that recognized the illegal distribution of duty-free oil.

(E) Around May 2016, the Defendant determined as follows with respect to the instant decision by re-audit.

① 등유는 경유보다 열효율이 떨어져 경유를 난방기 면세유로 사용했을 때보다 사용량이 많아야 함에도 농민 38명의 2016. 1.˜2. 면세유 구입량과 2013. 1.˜2. 면세유 구입량을 비교하면, 면세유 구입량이 실제 사용량이라고 추정되는 2016. 1.˜2.에는 면세유 구입량이 없거나 현저하게 감소하였기에, 2013. 1.˜2.의 면세유 구입량 중 일정량이 부정유통된 것으로 판단된다.

② 2016. 1.˜2.경 면세유 구입량이 현저하게 감소한 농민 38명 중 15명의 경우 면세유류 구입카드 결제계좌에서 2013. 1.˜2. 면세유 대금 결제일 이후 출처가 불분명한 현금이 반복 입금되고, 농민들은 입금된 현금의 출처를 밝히지 못하여 농민들 계좌에 입금된 현금은 면세유 허위결제에 따른 반환금이 입금된 것으로 보이므로, 2013.(을 제3호증인 조사종결보고서 중 이 부분에 기재된 '2016'은 '2013'의 오기로 보인다) 1.˜2.경 구입한 면세유 중 일정량을 BB주유소에 부정유통한 혐의가 짙다.

C) Determination

(1) In full view of the above facts, the purport of the instant decision is to verify whether the instant oil is related to the illegal distribution of tax-free oil, and to prove the probability of tax evasion, and as a result, the amount of tax evasion should be limited to the amount objectively confirmed, and the Defendant should regard the amount of tax omission as the amount of tax omission only for the portion objectively confirmed, which is the illegal distribution of tax-free oil through the confirmation of the farmers in accordance with the purport of the decision. Accordingly, the Defendant shall be deemed as the amount of tax omission, and the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax should be corrected accordingly. However,

① 면세유류 구입카드로 면세유를 결제한 농민 93명 중 일부인 38명의 경우 2016.1.˜2. 사이의 면세유 구입량이 이 사건 처분에 관한 조사대상기간인 2013. 1.˜2. 사이의 면세유 구입량보다 크게 감소하였고, ② 그 38명 중 일부인 22명의 경우 2013.1.˜2.경 면세유류 구입카드 결제계좌에 입금된 금원의 입금내역을 제대로 소명하지 못하였다는 사정에만 착안하여 이 사건 유류가 면세유로 부정유통 되었음이 객관적으로 확인되었다고 보고 그 전체를 과세매출 누락액으로 판단하고, 이 사건 결정의 취지와 달리 이 사건 원처분에 관한 과세표준 및 세액을 전혀 경정하지 않고 그대로 유지하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다. 비록 이 사건 결정 이후 추가로 확인한 위 ①, ②와 같은 사정까지 더하여 보면 이 사건 유류 일부가 면세유로 부정유통 되었을 가능성을 전혀 배제할 수 없으나, 그와 같은 가능성만으로는 이 사건 유류의 전부 또는 그 일부일 경우라면 누구에게 어느 정도의 면세유가 부정유통 된 것인지 객관적으로 확인되었다고 보기에 부족함은 이 사건 결정의 취지와 별반 다를 바 없다고 하겠다.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the original disposition cannot be deemed a follow-up disposition in accordance with the purport of the decision of this case, and thus, it goes against the binding force of the decision of this case, and it cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that there are circumstances where it is difficult to conduct an investigation on farmers who know that there is disadvantage when illegal circulation of tax-free goods is confirmed.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition in conflict with the binding force of the instant decision cannot be exempted from the determination that it was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.