부가가치세부과처분취소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.
B. The plaintiff.
1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the phrase “, Dec. 20, 2012.” in the part “, Dec. 1, 2012”; (b) the reason for this part of the disposition is the same as the part “the reason for the disposition of the court of first instance” (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim and conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff: (a) purchased actual materials from the companies known through the newspaper advertisement, etc. and supplied them to the normal companies that deliver them to the manufacturers of the products; and (b) there exists a supporting statement of transactions and payment details; and (c) the instant tax invoice also contains formal descriptions, such as the opposite contractual party, transaction items, transaction amount, and date
The Defendant’s disposition on the premise that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice on the grounds that the Plaintiff was discovered as data by an enterprise that did not directly trade with the Plaintiff even after having traded actual assets with the Plaintiff, is serious and illegal as it is objectively obvious and objectively.
Therefore, as to the disposition of this case, the plaintiff primarily claims the confirmation of invalidity and the revocation thereof as preliminary.
B. (1) In order to make a judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim (the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case) a defective administrative disposition is to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law and is objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and, at the same time
b) the Commission;