logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.24 2013구합5754
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in the non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business in Silung-si B.

C 1D 6 350,852,402 F 11,43,604,604,851,6604,3604 J 43 G G 4604,8604, 3604 J 171,263,059, 9006 NM 8398,004,004,507 PP 8167,745,500 total 1039,023,218,130

B. In 208, No. 1 in 2009, and No. 2 in 2009, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of an aggregate amount of KRW 9,023,218,130 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from each of the supply price of D operation of C, E operation F, G operation, H, I operation L, K operation L, M operation L, M operation N, and O operation P during the 2nd VAT period as listed below (hereinafter “instant transaction parties”). The Plaintiff reported the value-added tax to the Defendant, including the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant decided not to deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the grounds that the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the input tax amount for the value-added tax of KRW 14,019,560 in 2008, value-added tax of KRW 179,106,360 in 209, value-added tax of KRW 279,106,360 in 209, and value-added tax of KRW 1,245,239,050 in 209 (including additional tax)

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 19, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on April 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not a tax invoice different from the facts, since it was actually discontinued from the clients of the instant case and was normally traded by remitting the purchase price.

arrow