[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1996.4.15.(8),1165]
If the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are different, the requirements for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount and the burden of proof shall accrue.
An entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier under a tax invoice shall not be entitled to deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there are special circumstances where the person who actually supplies the tax invoice and the supplier was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier and was unaware of the fact that it was entered in the name of the supplier, and the supplier did not know of the fact that there was no negligence. The burden of proof that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that he was unaware of the fact, and that there was no negligence on the part of the purchaser, must be proved by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount.
Article 17 (2) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4808 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Burden of proof]
Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5030 Decided August 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2048) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu957 Decided May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1672) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu434 Decided June 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2177) (Gong1995Sang, 1647) Decided March 10, 195
Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office
Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu33267 delivered on September 19, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Unless there are special circumstances where an entrepreneur who actually supplies a tax invoice and a supplier under a tax invoice do not know the fact that the person who actually supplies the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that it was entered in the name of the supplier, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded. The fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the person did not know of the fact that it was nominal, and that there was no negligence on the part of the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13206 delivered on March 10, 195)
The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the construction corporation of the building of this case did not recognize and determine the contents of the above tax invoice as a false tax invoice different from the facts because it was not a prime comprehensive construction corporation listed in Chapter III supplier of the tax invoice submitted by the plaintiff. Further, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as seen above and the evidence relations stated by the court below, and it did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the deduction of input tax amount in cases where the facts were erroneous or the contents of the tax invoice are different from the facts. There is no reason to view all the arguments.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)