실제 공급자와 세금계산서 상 공급자가 다른데 확인하지 않는 것은 원고의 과실이며 사실과 다른 세금계산서는 매입세액 공제 받을 수 없음[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-6712 ( December 24, 2015)
Additional-2014-0185 (Law No. 16, 2015)
Unless the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are confirmed to be different, the plaintiff's negligence and the actual tax invoice cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.
(As in the first instance judgment, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are the Plaintiff’s negligence and the actual supplier cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.
Article 16 (Tax Invoice)
Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-31564
Kim 00
00. Head of tax office
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-6712 ( December 24, 2015)
2016.06.22
2016.13
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 1,050,580, value-added tax imposed on the plaintiff on July 15, 2014; KRW 1,019,360 for the first term of 2010; KRW 976,890 for the second term of 201; KRW 1,020,570 for the second term of 201; KRW 620,090 for the first term of 2012; and KRW 367,390 for the second term of 2012 for the second term of 201.
The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.