[1] The case holding that acquisition of stuffed bottles does not constitute a transaction subject to special cases where input tax deduction for recycled waste resources, etc. under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

[2] Time for submission of data about the existence and scope of the tax base amount in a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation

[1] The case holding that acquisition of stuffed bottles does not constitute a transaction subject to special cases where input tax deduction of value-added tax on recycled waste resources, etc. under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

[2] In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, the object of the trial is the existence of the taxable value decided by the tax authority, and the party to the lawsuit can assert that the tax disposition is lawful by submitting all the materials concerning the existence and scope of the tax base, etc. until the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing.

[1] Article 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6049 of Dec. 28, 1999); Article 102 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998) (see Article 108 of the current Restriction of Special Taxation Act) Article 97(4) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act No. 15976 of Dec. 31, 1998) (see Article 110(4) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act); Article 110(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act / [2] Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu429 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987, 1585), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1079 delivered on June 7, 198 (Gong1988, 1038)

Plaintiff

The superintendent of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu11754 delivered on October 2, 2003

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

1. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s 13 business closures, including the non-party who purchased the instant stuffs, or the non-party registered business operators (hereinafter “Purchases”) continuously and repeatedly collected a large amount of gambling disease from October 1998 to December 199, and supplied it to the Plaintiff and the Gyeonggi Industry Co., Ltd., and that the Plaintiff’s gambling disease amounting to KRW 80 million, which is less than KRW 51 million provided to the Plaintiff during the above period, the purchases of this case fall under the category of business to create added value, regardless of its business registration, and determined that the purchases of this case fall under the category of the non-party who purchased the goods or services under Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15658, Apr. 1, 198; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 6, 198).

In light of the relevant laws and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to value-added tax, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the object of the trial is the existence of the taxable value decided by the tax authority, and the parties to the lawsuit can assert the legitimacy of the tax disposition by submitting all the data on the existence and scope of the tax base until the closing of the trial court proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu429, Sept. 8, 1987). In the same purport, the court below held that it cannot be deemed unlawful to add the plaintiff's assertion that the purchase of the gambs in this case constitutes a business entity subject to the deduction of the value-added tax amount, except for the grounds that the defendant used as the basis for the tax disposition in this case in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case, since the purchase company in this case constitutes the business entity subject to the deduction of the value-added tax amount, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the addition

3. 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 Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)