beta
(영문) 광주고등법원 2012. 01. 16. 선고 2011누506 판결

주유소를 운영하는 사업자로서 공급자가 사실과 다른 세금계산서를 교부받았으므로 매입세액을 불공제한 처분은 적법함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Jeonju District Court 2009Guhap2990 (No. 31, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

early 2009 Mine2261 (Law No. 24, 2009)

Title

Since a business operator operating a gas station has received a tax invoice different from the facts, the disposition that deducts input tax amount is legitimate.

Summary

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance), a business operator operating a gas station has received a different tax invoice from the fact, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a bona fide and without fault, and the disposition that did not deduct the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the tax invoice is legitimate.

Related statutes

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cases

(B)Revocation of revocation of disposition to correct the value-added tax, etc.

Plaintiff and appellant

Park XX

Defendant, Appellant

Head of the Military Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Jeonju District Court Decision 2009Guhap2990 Decided May 31, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 26, 2011

Imposition of Judgment

January 16, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of March 2, 2006 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2009, of KRW 14,583,960 for the second term of 2006, value-added tax for the first term of 2007, KRW 108,702,010 for the first term of 207, value-added tax for 104,507,740 for the second term of 207, value-added tax for the first term of 208, KRW 73,315,730 for the first term of 208, and KRW 34,800 for the global income tax for the

Reasons

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that "the head of each of the instant branch offices in XX" of the first instance court Nos. 5, 8, and 9 is "the head of each of the instant branch offices in XX (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant branch offices")", and that "each of the instant tax invoices is a tax invoice different from the facts" is not sufficient to reverse the first instance court's decision, and that "each of the instant tax invoices is a tax invoice different from the facts", and that "A, witness A, witness A, witness B, testimony of the lecture, and testimony and "the plaintiff is a party with good faith and without negligence" of the first instance court's decision are not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's argument. Thus, the court's reasoning for the first instance court's decision is the same as that for the first instance court's decision, except for the rejection of each statement of evidence No. 12-1, 2, and 18, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.