Busan District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-25288 (2018.02)

The imposition of penalty tax is legitimate because of poor management and issuance of a written order for release of tax-free oil to persons other than fishermen.

The issuance of a delivery order to a person other than the fishermen due to the failure to verify the relevant documentary evidence, such as failure to verify the relevant documentary evidence, and the issuance of a delivery order to the persons other than the fishermen, and there is no justifiable reason to believe that there is no reason to believe that there

Value-added tax, etc. on petroleum products for farming, forestry, fishery and coastal passenger ships under Article 106-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act;

2018Nu20849 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

BBBB Cooperatives, etc. 1

00O Head of tax office and 2

July 4, 2018

August 29, 2018

1. The part of the claim against the defendant SSS director among the part concerning the claim against the defendant SSS director of the plaintiff DoD W cooperative on the first instance judgment against the defendant DoD W cooperative is revoked, and the plaintiff DoD W cooperative's claim falling under the above revoked part is dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff BBB cooperative and the Defendants are borne by the Plaintiff BBB cooperative, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff DDD WW cooperative and the Plaintiff EE head of the tax office and the Head of the Defendant ZZ head of the tax office, and the total costs of appeal between the Plaintiff DDD WW cooperative and the Defendant SS head of the tax office are borne by the Plaintiff DDD W cooperative.

1. Purport of claim

Each disposition taken by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

(a) Plaintiff BBB cooperative: The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. It is so decided as described in the claims.

B. Plaintiff DoDD W WDD W: The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. The judgment is the same as the written purport of the claim.

(c) The director of the Defendant SSS Tax Office: It is as described in paragraph (1).

1. The reasons for the entry in this part concerning the remaining disposition of taxation other than the dispositions of imposition listed in the separate sheet 34 to 40, 42 to 45 are as follows. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance [excluding paragraphs (1) and (2) of the part concerning plaintiffs DDW [excluding paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding paragraphs 20 to 21 of the judgment), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to each disposition of imposition listed in the separate sheet 34 to 40, 42 to 45 of the annexed sheet 1

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) Plaintiff DDW’s part (1) and (2) part of Plaintiff DDDW’s part among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance 1 to 15; and (c) the specific judgment as to the disposition imposing this part; and (d) the judgment as to the specific judgment as to the disposition imposing this part is as follows; and (e) Plaintiff DDW’s part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment except for adding the contents described in paragraph 3. as to Plaintiff DDW’s argument to this part.

B. Determination

(1) The term "person entrusted" in attached Form 2 of this Decision means that there is no evidence to prove that each delegating has prepared each of the above delegations stated in attached Form 13-2 in the letter of delegation (Evidence A 13-2) from No. 1. to 15. The term "B number" in attached Form 2 of this Decision; (2) the term "person entrusted" in attached Form 2 does not have any evidence to prove that each of the relevant mandatory has a delegation relationship with the above delegating and the above delegations as stated in attached Table 2; (3) the term "non-entry certificate (No. 15-1 through 7)" in attached Form 2 is prepared after the institution of this case; (2) the term "non-entry certificate" in attached Form 2 means that each consignee of each delivery order issued on the date of issuance of each delivery order was written in the name or signature "written confirmation of acceptance"; and (2) the term "written confirmation of receipt of each of the delegated persons" is not sufficient to prove that each of the above delegation and the above documents were submitted.

Therefore, each of the dispositions in the separate sheet 34 through 40, 42, and 45 against the plaintiff's DaDDD exists. Thus, the above plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

3. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion in this court

A. The plaintiffs asserts that the business guidelines are merely the internal regulations of the plaintiffs, and thus, they cannot be the standard for determining the management insolvency, such as failing to verify the relevant evidentiary documents under Article 106-2(11)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On the other hand, even if the business guidelines merely provide for detailed matters necessary for the supply of duty-free petroleum and the follow-up management, as long as this seems to have been provided with reasonable criteria for the methods and procedures for the supply of duty-free petroleum and the follow-up management by embodying superior statutes, the tax-free petroleum management agency like the Plaintiffs should comply with the above regulations and supply and manage duty-free oil. Thus, it can be considered as detailed criteria for determining whether there was a poor management of the provision on the imposition of additional tax in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du21669, Nov. 29, 2012; 2015Du2864, Jul. 11, 2017). Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiffs in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the part concerning the remaining additional disposition except for each disposition of imposition listed in the separate sheet 34 through 40, 42 through 45 in the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. Therefore, all of the appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit, and the part concerning each disposition of imposition listed in the separate sheet 34 through 40, 42 through 45 in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the part concerning the revocation is unfair, and it is so revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition. It is so decided as per Disposition.