beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 11. 22. 선고 2013누11439 판결

이 사건 세금계산서는 사실과 다른 세금계산서로 원고의 선의ㆍ무과실을 인정할 수 있음[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 2012Guhap2431 (2013.04.02)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 201J 3598 ( October 17, 2012)

Title

The instant tax invoice can be recognized as a false tax invoice with the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault.

Summary

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, considering the shipment slips, the entry of the inventory status, the statement of the purchaser related persons, etc., and the plaintiff did not actually receive oil from the purchaser, etc. under the tax invoice of this case, and the above companies can fully recognize that they issued the false tax invoice for the purpose of paying the fee, and that they neglected the investigation even if there was sufficient room for suspicion.

Related statutes

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cases

2013Nu11439. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Plaintiff and appellant

CHAPTER A

Defendant, Appellant

Head of the Office of Government

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2431 Decided April 2, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

November 5, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

November 22, 2013

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On July 4, 2011, the Defendant revoked each disposition of the value-added tax for the second term portion of value-added tax for the Plaintiff on 2006, the value-added tax for the first term portion of 2007, the value-added tax for the second term of 2007, the value-added tax for the second term of 2008, the value-added tax for the first term of 2008, and the value-added tax for the second term of 2008.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.