Incheon District Court 201Guhap2006 ( November 03, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy3918 ( October 27, 2011)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice by the supplier.

The Plaintiff was supplied with an entrepreneur, other than the supplier, with an Alumin scrap, and the Plaintiff cannot be said to have been negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know it. Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact by the supplier, and thus, the input tax amount cannot be deducted.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu4090 Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap2006 Decided November 3, 2011

July 10, 2012

August 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on May 6, 2010 and KRW 000 on KRW 1st value-added tax in 2005 against the Plaintiff on May 6, 201 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, sees it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Parts in height:

In Part 4 of the first instance court's decision, "each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3" in Part 5 of the first instance court's decision is "each entry in the evidence No. 1 to 8 and testimony of the witness of the trial court at the trial court at the trial court at the trial court."

In the 4th sentence of the first instance court, the 6th to 14th sentence "d. judgment" is as follows.

D. Determination

(1) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier on the part of his/her unaware of the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

(2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the arguments at the testimony of Jeong-Sa witness at the trial. i.e., (i) the Plaintiff was supplied with Aluminum scrap for the manufacture of Aluminum with the XX metal, and again supplied Aluminum with Aluminum; (ii) the Plaintiff purchased an Alumin metal, Y, △△△, etc. from Co., Ltd., Ltd. and supplied the Plaintiff with Aluminum scrap under the name of Plumin, and supplied the Plaintiff with it; (iii) the Plaintiff was supplied with the Plaintiff’s input tax invoice at the time of the Plaintiff’s request; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s input tax invoice at the time of the Plaintiff’s actual supply of Olumin metal, Co., Ltd., Ltd., a supplier of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the Alumin metal scrap, and the Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s purchase price from the relevant account.

Therefore, since the tax invoice of this case is different from the facts, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.