부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. The Defendant’s November 18, 201 against the Plaintiff on November 18, 2011.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
The space between pages 8, 12 through 10 shall be as follows:
“2) If a supplier listed in the tax invoice issued by G and H is different from the actual supplier, an input tax amount under the tax invoice cannot be deducted or refunded, barring any special circumstance where the supplier was unaware of the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and there was no negligence in the absence of such knowledge.
In addition, the burden of proving that the person who received the supply was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name should be proved by the party claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount.
(2) In light of the following facts and circumstances, even though G and H cannot be deemed an enterprise that actually supplied the Plaintiff with the closed Dong, as seen earlier, based on the respective statements in subparagraphs 3 through 15, and 19, and the witness testimony in U.S., it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the said transaction parties to whom the Plaintiff was supplied with the closed Dong was merely a nominal supplier and that there was sufficient reason to separately suspect that the Plaintiff actually supplied the closed Dong to the Plaintiff.
Ultimately, the Plaintiff did not know that the transaction by the tax invoice that was received from each of the above transaction parties was a “defensive transaction”, and did not know of such circumstances and did not have any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.
1. The Plaintiff’s outsourcing processing business company, etc.