사실과 다른 세금계산서로 보여지고 원고의 과실이 없다고 볼 수 없어 당초 과세처분 적법함[국승]
Suwon District Court 2012Guhap466 ( October 09, 2012)
early 201J 2572 ( November 15, 2011)
The original taxation disposition is legitimate because it can not be viewed as false tax invoices and there is no negligence by the plaintiff.
(1) When comprehensively considering each evidence and the purport of the entire argument in part of the testimony, the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff is a different tax invoice from the facts entered falsely by the supplier, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was unaware of the facts entered in the name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence. Therefore, the initial tax disposition is lawful.
2012Nu33609 global income and revocation of disposition
CHAPTER AAA
Head of Namyang District Tax Office
Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap466 decided October 9, 2012
April 24, 2013
May 8, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
· The purport of the Yellow Dust
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000, which reverts to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2011, is revoked (for example, “No. 6, 2011” as stated in the purport of the claim of the instant complaint appears to be a clerical error in April 1, 201).
The reasons for the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and the plaintiff cited for this reason pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the following are briefly mentioned in the judgment. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff fulfilled his duty of care as a bona fide trading party even if the actual supplier of the oil in this case was not an OO Energy Co., Ltd., the plaintiff fulfilled his duty of care. However, in light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to the first instance court is insufficient to find that the plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice in this case and was not negligent, and there is no other evidence to support this, and the above argument of the plaintiff is not acceptable. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.