beta
(영문) 대법원 2013. 12. 12. 선고 2013두17879 판결

(심리불속행)이 사건 세금계산서는 공급자의 기재가 사실과 다른 세금계산서이며, 원고의 선의 ・ 무과실을 인정할 수 없음[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2012Nu424, 17 July 2013)

Title

(A) The tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice which is different from the fact that the supplier's entry is not true, and the plaintiff's good faith and negligence cannot be recognized.

Summary

(1) The Plaintiff’s each of the instant tax invoices to the effect that the Plaintiff received oil from each of the instant suppliers falls under a different tax invoice from the fact, and the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence cannot be acknowledged.

Cases

2013Du1789. Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Plaintiff-Appellant

CHAPTER A

Defendant-Appellee

Head of Dong District Office

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2012Nu424 Decided July 17, 2013

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

심급 사건
-대전고등법원청주재판부 2013.7.17.선고 2012누424