대출목적의 미신고매출세금계산서에 대한 가산세 부과의 적법여부[국패]
Incheon District Court 2015Guhap53408 (27 April 2017)
Whether the imposition of penalty tax on non-reported sales tax invoice for the purpose of loan is legitimate
(1) The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is not sufficient to regard the instant transaction as a processing transaction, and there is a defect in the entries required by the relevant laws and regulations, such as erroneous entry, and the issuance of tax invoice means the issuance of the tax invoice to the transaction partner as stated in the tax invoice. As such, the imposition of penalty tax for non-reported sales tax invoice for the purpose of loan is illegal.
Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Seoul High Court 2017Nu50937 Disposition Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition
JungOOO Co., Ltd.
O Head of tax office
November 22, 2017
November 29, 2017
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including the costs of supplementary participation.
3. The attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance was changed to the "attached Form 1" due to the reduction of claims in this court.
1. Purport of claim
'Additional Imposition' in the attached Form written by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is subject to imposition of each value-added tax and additional tax.
Section 2 of this Court is revoked (the plaintiff has reduced the claim in this Court).
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;
The reasoning of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where partial contents of the judgment of the court of first instance are used as in paragraph (2).
2. Parts to be dried;
○ 3. 4 to 7. (c) shall be deleted.
○○ 3 side 8 pages d. The defendant is "A notice of payment, excluding 1 and 2 days from July 15, 2014". The plaintiff is sent to "a notice of payment on July 15, 2014".
○ 4, 16, 19, 19, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30,00,00,00
○ 5 pages 4, 2006 from 2, 2006 to 2, 2008 are as follows: (B) 2, 2006 to 2, 2008.
○ 5 pages 8, “1, 207 1, 2007”.
○ 5. 5. 11. Notes 11. 3. and the contents thereof shall be deleted.
○ 5 pages 15 "from 2006 in 2006" shall be read as "from 2 years in 2006 and from 1 year in 2008".
○ 6 pages 8, “A 5-10, and B 5” are “A 5 through 10, and B 5”.
○ 8 pages 9 "from a collaborative company (OOO)" is "from a collaborative company (OOO)".
○ 8 .. 14 ....................
○ 9 pages 3 received "(in the continuance of appeal)." The chief of Yeongdeungpo-gu District Tax Office appealed and appealed the appeal, but all appeals and appeals were dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu3001, Supreme Court Decision 2017Du48475)."
○ 10 pages 6 are as follows: “As it is not recognized that the reported transaction part of this case is not accompanied by the real transaction, it shall not be deemed that it is accompanied by the real transaction.”
○ 10 10,000, the following shall be added to “illegal” of the 8th page:
(Decree) Since there is no evidence to specify the processing transaction even if part of the reported transaction of this case is a processing transaction, each disposition of this case is deemed unlawful.
○ 11. 6. "207." "2008."
○ 12, 12, 7, the "assessment" of the 7th place shall be considered as "point".
○ 12. 12. 12. 13. Mazy and the contents of the proposal shall be deleted.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance that is invalidated by the reduction of the claim of this court is just as a result, and thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, but the decision of the court of first instance has been partially modified due to the reduction of the claim of this court, and it is therefore specified.