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

Cheong-gu Office

Done on May 27, 2016 by the Seoul Central District Court 2016TTT 381

The amount of dividends to the defendant in the distribution schedule shall be deleted in KRW 3,929,488, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected in KRW 3,929,488.

A. On February 5, 2010, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with a trade name called BB machinery, but closed on June 18, 201.

on the basis of a tax invoice issued by BB or issued by BB, the Defendant is guilty.

With respect to the container system, the sum of value-added tax amounting to KRW 92,314,530 was notified as follows.

B. As to the distribution procedure case in Seoul Central District Court 2016Mo381, the above court on May 27, 2016

B Value-added Tax on Machinery 127,660,400 won (the additional tax, etc. seems to be included)

The distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) was prepared with the content that distributes the total amount of KRW 3,929,488 to the Defendant, who is the one having the right to seize the amount of credit, as reported to the amount of credit. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

All tax invoices issued in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to BB machinery are issued by ParkCC by stealing the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s taxation disposition imposing value-added tax on BB machinery is null and void as a matter of course, and the demand for distribution based thereon is also unreasonable. As such, the amount of dividends against the Defendant in the distribution schedule of this case should be deleted, and the amount of dividends against the Plaintiff should be corrected to KRW 3,929,488.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine whether ParkCC issued all tax invoices for BB machinery by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4, in the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Court 4418, Jun. 30, 2014, the above court reported the value-added tax of 108,40,000 won from the above court on June 30, 2014.

A list of total tax invoices and total value of KRW 257,350,000 shall be submitted by false customer, and ② The sum of supply values from February 2, 2010 to June 2010 among BB machinery

Although it can be recognized that ParkCC was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10,000,000 for criminal facts that "a false tax invoice of KRW 187,500,000 has been issued, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that it issued all tax invoices for BB machinery by stealing the name of the plaintiff, and otherwise, they are different.

There is no evidence to prove.

2) Next, we examine whether the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the basis of the tax invoice issued by ParkCC in the name of the Plaintiff is automatically null and void.

In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts that are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation by accurately investigating the relevant facts, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful taxation that misleads the facts of taxation requirements is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du2723, Feb. 23, 2012; 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, even if the imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff was made based on the tax invoice issued in the name of the Plaintiff by ParkCC, the Defendant can only investigate the fact that the Plaintiff was the taxpayer who issued the tax invoice in the name of BB, and the fact that the Plaintiff was not the one who issued the actual tax invoice, and thus, it cannot be objectively clear that the defect in the imposition of value-added tax is objectively obvious, and thus, the imposition of value-added tax should not be deemed as void as a matter of course.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

AAAAAAA