In a case where Party A, who sells oil products, carried out of Party B, etc. to Party B, etc., did not sell the petroleum products for agriculture, the head of the competent tax office issued a forged tax-free petroleum supply certificate and intended to refund traffic tax already paid, etc. under Article 9(1) of the former Traffic, Energy and Environment Tax Act, the case affirming the judgment below that the above disposition was lawful.

In a case where Party A, who sells oil products, carried out of Party B, etc. to Party B, etc. without selling it for agriculture, submitted a forged certificate of supply of tax-free petroleum to the head of the competent tax office, and issued a disposition of traffic tax, etc. under Article 9(1) of the former Traffic, Energy and Environment Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Traffic Tax Act”) to recover the traffic tax already paid, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Article 9(1) of the Traffic Tax Act only provides the subject of the decision of correction as “tax base and tax amount,” but does not limit the tax amount based on the tax base, but also provides that the reason for the decision of correction is erroneous or incomplete in the content of the report under Article 7 of the Traffic Tax Act, and thus, the head of the competent tax office can correct the decision of correction under Article 9(1) of the Traffic Tax Act if there is an error in the amount of refundable tax, which is the details of the report under Article 7 of the Traffic Tax Act.

Articles 106-2(1)1 and 113(2) and (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007); Articles 7(1) and 9(1) of the former Traffic, Energy and Environment Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007);

ZEEX Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Shin Sung-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

(1) The head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall not apply to the case where the person has received the report.

Gwangju High Court Decision 2011Nu1084 decided February 21, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 106-2 (1) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Special Taxation Act”) provides that the special consumption tax and traffic, energy, and environment tax (hereinafter “traffic tax”) on the portion taken out from a manufacturing place by a farmer prescribed by the Presidential Decree to use for agriculture shall be exempted as prescribed by the Presidential Decree until June 30, 2012, and Article 113 of the same Act provides that where the petroleum products on which the special consumption tax or traffic tax is imposed fall under the tax exemption under the provisions of Article 106-2, the relevant tax amount may be refunded, paid, or collected, and the procedures for refund or tax credit under the provisions of paragraph (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the relevant goods.

Meanwhile, Article 7(1) of the former Traffic, Energy and Environment Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Traffic Tax Act”) provides that “The person liable to pay traffic tax shall submit to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the manufacturing place by the end of the following month a return stating the amount and price of each kind of goods taken out from the manufacturing place, calculated tax amount, exempted tax amount, deducted tax amount, refunded tax amount, and tax amount, etc.” Article 9(1) provides that “if a return under Article 7 is not filed or there is an error or omission in the details of such return, the head of the competent tax office or customs office shall determine or correct the tax base and tax amount

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the instant petroleum products carried out to ○○ Petroleum Gas station, etc. were sold to farmers for agricultural purposes, and thus, did not receive traffic tax exemption under Article 106-2(1)1 of the Special Taxation Act, and thus, submitted a forged certificate of tax-free petroleum supply to the Defendant, even though the traffic tax exemption cannot be granted under Article 106-2(1)1 of the same Act, and thus, reported the amount of refundable tax to be refunded.

Based on this, the lower court determined that Article 9(1) of the Traffic Tax Act only stipulates the subject matter of the decision of correction as “tax base and tax amount” and does not limit the tax amount according to the tax base, but also states that there is an error or omission in the details of the return under Article 7, which is the details of the return under Article 7, the head of the competent tax office should make the decision of correction pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Traffic Tax Act, and that the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful on the ground of Article 9(1), etc. of the Traffic Tax Act, and further, the instant disposition of this case does not violate the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confirmation of refundable tax amount or the principle of self-responsibility under the Constitution, as otherwise alleged in

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)