부가가치세 등 부가처분취소
1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of July 2, 2012 for the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012 (including additional tax), KRW 98,895,760 (including additional tax) for the second term of 2010, and 2010.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established around May 6, 1995 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling human and joint gold in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu.
1,636,272,660 won 1,932,469,950 won 2nd 562,89,200 won in 2010 1,636,272,660 won in 2011 201 4,662,87,800 won in total 201 2nd 193,123,600 won in 347,104,800 won in 201
B. From July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011, the Plaintiff received 30 copies of the tax invoice of KRW 4,662,870,210 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from CM (hereinafter “CM”), C (D), E (F), and G (H) (hereinafter “each of the instant transaction partners”) as follows, and received 4,62,870,210 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). Upon filing the said tax return with the Defendant, the said value of supply was deducted as the input tax amount.
C. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant denied the deduction of input tax amount under the said tax invoice on the ground that the supplier stated otherwise in the instant tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 98,89,760 for the second term portion of value-added tax (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 11,257,980 for the business year 2010, KRW 606,081,770 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the business year 2010, KRW 88,964,810 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, and KRW 88,964,810 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the business year 2011, respectively.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 12, 2012, but was dismissed on August 12, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including relevant branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds.
1. The Plaintiff, as indicated in the instant tax invoice, purchased the closure Dong, etc. from each business partner of the instant case and received it. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is true.