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.

Article 106-2 (Abatement or Exemption of Value-Added Tax, etc. on Petroleum Products for Farming, Forestry, Fishing and Coastal Passenger Ships)

Article 106-2 (Abatement or Exemption of Value-Added Tax, etc. for Petroleum Products for Farming, Forestry, Fishing and Coastal Passenger Ships)

1. The imposition disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiffs on February 6, 2008 shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고 정○○은 ○남 강○군 대○면 당○리 533-1에서 배우자 신○순의 명의로 '□륙물산'이라는 상호로， 원고 이○구는 ○남 강○군 마○면 마○리 733-10에서 '▢익물산'이라는 상호로， 원고 이○남은 ○남 강○군 마○면 마○랴 978-1에서 '▣도수산' 이라는 상호로， 원고 정○민은 ○남 강○군 마○면 마○리 1006에서 배우자 김○금의 명의로 '○수산'이라는 상호로 각 해조류가공업을 영위하고 있다.

나. 원고들은 미역건조업자는 면세유 공급대상에 해당하지 아니하여 면세유를 공급 받거나 미역건조업에 면세유를 사용할 수 없음에도， ○남 ▣도군 약산면 장○리 어촌 계장 방○만， 장○용 및 ○남 ▣도군 금당면 ○산리 어촌계장 송○수와 공모하여 각 허위의 미역양식어업권 행사계약을 체결한 후 위 각 행사계약서를 강○군수산업협동조 합(이하 '강○군수협'이라 한다)에 제출하는 방법으로， 원고 정○○은 2004. 3. 19.경부 터 2007. 6. 8.경까지 55회에 걸쳐 면세유 128，600 ℓ 를， 원고 이○구는 2004. 6. 4.경부 터 2007. 5. 31.경까지 65회에 걸쳐 면세유 274，200 ℓ 를， 원고 이○남은 2004. 3. 2.경부터 2007. 7. 11.경까지 157회에 걸쳐 면세유 296，202 ℓ 를， 원고 정○민은 2004. 6. 2. 경부터 2007. 7. 18.경까지 96회에 걸쳐 면세유 486，000 ℓ (이하 '이 사건 각 면세유'라 한다)를 각 공급받아 미역건조용으로 사용하였다.

C. The Defendant, on February 2008, illegally leaked to the Plaintiff at each of the instant tax exemption rates.

6. In applying Article 106-2(5) to the Plaintiffs, each of the instant dispositions that impose and notify traffic tax and value-added tax, such as the details of the attached taxation disposition, was imposed.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

(a)Recommendations of the plaintiffs;

(1) The whole country-wide white saves building industry has used tax-free oil in practice, fishery products building industry, and similar agricultural products building industry have been included in the tax-free oil supply object, and the revision of the relevant detailed regulations on September 20, 2007 reveals that if the inspector took part in the disposition of suspension of indictment against the plaintiff, and the prosecutor took part in the disposition of suspension of indictment against the plaintiff as a case of Korean challenge against the plaintiff, the disposition of this case is against the balance.

(2) Under the current law, there is no basis for presumption of traffic tax, etc. by a dryer of fishery products using tax-free oil, and the subsequent disposition is contrary to the tax legal principle.

(3) The plaintiffs set the U.S. sales price on the basis of the duty-free oil price, and the benefits arising from the plaintiffs' provision of duty-free duty-free oil actually accrue to the U.S. farmer, and each of the dispositions of this case violates the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 106-2 (Abatement or Exemption of Value-Added Tax, etc. on Petroleum Products for Farming, Forestry, Fishing and Coastal Passenger Ships)

Article 106-2 (Abatement or Exemption of Value-Added Tax, etc. for Petroleum Products for Farming, Forestry, Fishing and Coastal Passenger Ships)

C. Determination

First of all, we examine whether each disposition of this case violates the principle of no taxation without law and is unlawful. The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002, and December 31, 2004)

According to Article 106-2, Article 106-2, Article 106-2, Article 106-2, 2 and Article 106-5 of the Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007), and fishermen prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "farmer, fishermen, etc.") for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, the value-added tax and the special consumption tax, transportation tax, education tax, and driving tax on the portion taken out from a manufacturing place or bonded area shall be exempted under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 10-2, subparagraph 1, 2, and 5 of the Act shall be exempted, and Article 106-2, and Article 106-2, subparagraph 3 of the Act shall be provided with tax-free petroleum and non-taxable petroleum and non-taxable petroleum for the purposes prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

In this case, it is clear that the interpretation of tax laws and regulations should be interpreted in accordance with the law, unless there are special circumstances, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret it without any reasonable reason. In full view of the above relevant provisions, Article 106-2 (5) of the former Tax Exclusion Act, which the defendant used as the basis for each disposition of this case, and Article 106-2 (5) of the former Tax Exclusion Act, which is provided by the agricultural cooperatives under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the fisheries cooperatives under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, for the purpose other than the agricultural, forestry, and fishery purposes after obtaining the right to purchase tax-free petroleum from the agricultural cooperatives under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the fisheries cooperatives under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, etc., and if the legally provided petroleum products are used for the purpose other than the agricultural, forestry, and fishery purposes, the reduction or exemption of the value-added tax on the relevant petroleum products and the additional tax therefor shall be presumed to be not applicable to the agricultural, fishery, etc. subject to the supply of tax-free petroleum under Article 106-2 (1) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the dismissal of this case is reasonable, so it is judged to accept it, and the same as the order.