세금계산서의 명의위장사실을 알지 못하였는지 여부[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap47357 ( July 17, 2009)
Whether the person was unaware of the name of the tax invoice;
There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff Company did not know and did not know that it was a false supplier of the goods, even if the name was the actual supplier of the goods.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of refusal to correct or correct each amount of value-added tax for the first term of 2003 against the plaintiff on October 16, 2007, value-added tax for the second term of 18,476,691, value-added tax for the second term of 2003, value-added tax for the second term of 9,325,279, value-added tax for the second term of 203, value-added tax for the first term of 204, value-added tax for the second term of 204, value-added tax for the second term of
The reason for the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited as the reason for this judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil
As the grounds for appeal of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the confirmation document, etc. submitted by the defendant in this case and the previous end of the plaintiff's representative director are based on the consideration and pressure of public officials belonging to the defendant, and that it cannot be admitted as evidence since it was prepared without any possibility of a long tax investigation by the plaintiff.
However, barring special circumstances, such as where a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer that a certain part of a transaction is true in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it may not readily deny the evidence of the written confirmation only by means of the evidence of the written confirmation, barring special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the taxpayer, or it is difficult to take the written confirmation as supporting material for the specific facts due to lack of the content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot avoid without delay the value of evidence of the written confirmation, etc., and there is no evidence of special circumstances where the said written confirmation cannot be used as supporting material for the specific facts.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.