부가가치세경정거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. This part of the judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the following contents. Thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 106-9(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “Article 106-9(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply)” shall be construed as “Article 106-9(hereinafter “Special Provisions of this case”).
The Tax Tribunal in the 3rd parallel 6th parallel 7th parallel 7th parallel : "The Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on June 1, 2016."
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant tax invoice was written in a false tax invoice and the instant value-added tax was paid without any cause. Even if the purchaser paid the instant value-added tax in accordance with the instant special provisions, since the right to claim the refund of the value-added tax belongs to the Plaintiff, who is the taxpayer of value-added tax, the Defendant is obligated to refund the instant value-added tax. 2) The instant value-added tax was paid by mistake, the purchaser, in accordance with the special provisions of the instant case, and thus, the right to claim the refund of the instant value-added tax belongs to mistake, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the obligation to refund the instant value-added tax, since the right to claim the refund of the instant value-added tax belongs to the Plaintiff. (B) The Plaintiff issued the instant tax invoice and filed the instant value-added tax return on the basis that the instant tax invoice was falsely issued, seeking the refund of the instant value-added tax on the ground that
C. The buyer actually supplied copper scrap to the buyer.