The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff, but the actual agent of the transaction related to the export of the instant vessel under the Value-Added Tax Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff entered into an export agency contract with ○○○ and the instant vessel, thereby exporting the instant vessel on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Examining in light of the records and relevant statutes, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the substance over form principle, such as the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the value-added tax amount to be paid by an entrepreneur is the amount computed by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and where the input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount is refundable (Article 17(1) of the Act), and where the tax invoice under Articles 16(1) of the Act is not issued, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount (Article 17(2)1-2 of the Act).

A tax invoice is an invoice that is to be prepared and issued to a person who is supplied with goods or services when a value-added tax taxable entrepreneur supplies such goods or services (Article 16(1) of the Act), and the person who prepares it is a supplier of goods or services, and the tax invoice under Article 16(1) of the Act shall be prepared by the person who is entrusted with the authority to prepare it by such supplier or the person who is entrusted with the authority to prepare it. The forged tax invoice shall not be deemed a tax invoice under Article 16(1) of the Act. Thus, the input tax amount of the forged tax invoice shall not be deducted from the output tax amount under

Meanwhile, Article 22(4)2 of the Act provides that an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the supply value declared differently from the fact among the entry of the list of total tax invoices by customer shall be imposed as an additional tax or deducted from the tax amount refundable. However, since the list of total tax invoices by customer is prepared in cases where a tax invoice is received under Article 16(1) of the Act (Article 20(1) of the Act), if the forged tax invoice by customer is entered in the list of total tax invoices by customer, the amount equivalent to 1/10 of the supply value shall be imposed as an additional tax or deducted

In addition, Article 22(5)1 of the Act provides that an amount equivalent to 10/100 of the returned tax amount shall be imposed as an additional tax or deducted from the refundable amount when the returned tax amount exceeds the refundable amount to be reported. Therefore, in cases where an input tax amount of a forged tax invoice that is not subject to refund is reported as an refundable amount, the amount equivalent to 10/10 of the input tax amount shall be imposed as an additional

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the record, the plaintiff delegated 00 won to this 7.5 won (hereinafter referred to as "import company") the business of exporting the ship of this case to 1.65 won (hereinafter referred to as " 1,871,957,200 won). 7. 75 won (hereinafter referred to as "1,875 won") was declared to 1,757,000 won and paid 1,757,70,000 won among the above export price of this case to the plaintiff, 750 won, 750 won and 1. 750 won, 75 won and 47. 75 won were declared to be the total purchase price of this case, 70 won and 50 won, 750 won, 4750 won and 570 won which were declared to be the total purchase price of this case, 50 won and 1750 won which were the only purchase price of this case, 4075 won and 506 won.

If the facts are identical, the Plaintiff’s output tax amount for the first term portion of 2004 x 10% x 10,455 x 10%) should be deducted from the above tax amount. As such, the Plaintiff’s input tax amount for the first term portion of 2004 x 43,917,386 won (46,07,517 - 2,090,131 won (104,506,545 won x 10% x 10,455 x 10%) should be deducted from the above tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s final tax amount for the input tax amount to be deducted would be 46,07,517 - 2,090,131 won, excluding the input tax amount under the relevant tax invoice under the forged tax invoice.

Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 151,012,630 for the first term of 2004 against the Plaintiff is to be revoked in its entirety. Although the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment is inappropriate or erroneous, the conclusion that the Defendant revoked the entire disposition of this case is legitimate, and thus, the lower court’s error did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.