초과환급신고가산세부과처분취소
1. The court shall dismiss a lawsuit claiming the additional refund of value-added tax;
2. The plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 3) except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
After the second fifth purchase, the term "purchase" (hereinafter referred to as "purchase of this case") shall be added.
The second part of the “after Korea,” in the second part, “after Korea,” is registered as the trade name “B” on June 5, 2014, and both “after the issuance of the business registration certificate on June 16, 2014,” and “after the issuance of the business registration certificate on June 16, 2014, the “after Korea,” both “after Korea,” and “after Korea, the purchase amount” in the 15th and 16th et al., both are “infusable input tax amount for the purchase amount of this case.”
“8,148,590 won” in Part 19 of the Second Instance shall be added “(Additional Tax on Excess Refund Return)”.
“Although an administrative appeal was filed on 2015.” from the last 2nd to the third 1st e.g., deletion of the part.
2. As to the legitimacy of a lawsuit claiming the payment of value-added tax refund ex officio, this part of the lawsuit is examined.
The Plaintiff asserted that the input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount during the first period of 2014, and sought payment of KRW 74,169,000 from the Defendant.
However, a taxpayer’s claim for the refund of value-added tax against the State shall follow the procedures for a party suit as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da95564, Mar. 21, 2013). Such party suit must be the subject of rights such as the State, etc. as the other party (see Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act). The Plaintiff filed a claim for the refund of value-added tax corresponding to a party suit against the Defendant who is not the State but the disposition authority
With respect to the merits,