사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당하므로 부과처분 적법함[국승]
Incheon District Court 2015-Guhap-51754 (2016.09)
The disposition of imposition is legitimate because it constitutes a false tax invoice.
(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) The tax invoice of this case prepared on the premise that the plaintiff was supplied with the construction and supply services by AA constitutes a false tax invoice.
Article 16 (Tax Invoice)
2016Nu51230 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
Plaintiff (Appellants et al.)
OO Construction Co., Ltd.
Defendant (Appellants and Appellants)
OO Head of the tax office
Incheon District Court Decision 2015Guhap51754 Decided June 9, 2016
2017.024
2017.03.24
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
3. 5/6 of the total costs of the litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 1/6 by the Defendant, respectively.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 2, 2014, of KRW 21,886,940 in 2010, KRW 2,11,820 in 2010, KRW 1,64,624,725 in 2011, KRW 162,856,279 in 201, and KRW 60,931 in 2012.
2. Purport of appeal
[2] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff shall be revoked. The Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 18,470,840 for value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 2, 2014, KRW 18,772,460 for the second period of 2010, KRW 53,928,804 for the second period of 2011, KRW 135,046, KRW 113 for the second period of 2011, KRW 135,046, KRW 113 for the second period of 201, KRW 49,597,37 for the first period of 2012.
[Defendant] The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed.
1. Details of the disposition;
The court's statements on this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of "B 5-1, 2, and 3" to "B 5-1, 2, and 3" under Section 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, Section 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court's statements on this part are cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
E. In accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance on January 24, 2017 where the trial was in progress, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part of the imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff’s KRW 3,416,10 out of KRW 1,886,940 in 2010, KRW 339,360 out of KRW 2,11,820 in 2, 2010, KRW 64,624, KRW 725 in 201, KRW 10,695, KRW 916 out of KRW 10,695, KRW 725 in 201, KRW 27,856, KRW 279 in 201, KRW 1,60, KRW 313,953 in 200 in 201, and KRW 1,60,931, KRW 313,953 in 2012.
2. Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of ex officio cancelled tax amount among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate
If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its effect and shall no longer exist, and shall exist
A lawsuit seeking revocation against an administrative disposition that does not have any interest in a lawsuit is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).
ex officio, as seen earlier, the Defendant rendered a decision of revocation of the part of the first instance judgment against the Defendant on January 24, 2017, where the Defendant had been in the trial proceeding, on which the part of the judgment against the Defendant was revoked ex officio. As such, the claim for revocation of the part of the lawsuit in this case, which was revoked, is seeking the revocation of the disposition that had already ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of its validity, and is
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's appeal
The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of some of its contents as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ Parts 3, 15 to 18, shall be deleted.
Part 4, "A 51 to 62, B 1-1 to 5," respectively, shall be added to Part 17.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part concerning imposition of value-added tax on the plaintiff's 1st, 21,886,940 won among the 3,416,10 won among the 2nd, 2010 won, 339,360 won among the 2nd, 111,820 won, 10,624, 625 won among the 1st, 2011, 10,695, 916 won among the 2nd, 162,856, 279 won among the 2nd, 27,810, 157 won among the 2nd, 2011, 162,856, 279 won among the 2nd, 2012, 1st, 60, 931, 331 won among the 31st, 953 won, shall be dismissed, and the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.