Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-64853 ( November 14, 2017)

Whether the tax invoice received by the plaintiff is processed

Tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff regarding the type of the business of the purchaser and the revolving funds, etc. are processed. Except for the transactions involving some actual purchase, the confirmation of the Defendant's processing transactions and the disposition for subsequent imposition is legitimate.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu3014

AARMA C&S Co.

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap64853 Decided November 14, 2017

May 31, 2018

June 28, 2018

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On June 12, 2015, the part that exceeds each stated amount in the “total Tax Amount” column of each disposition imposing value-added tax (attached Form 4), 1) in each disposition imposing value-added tax.

2) In the imposition disposition of each corporate tax for the business year 2012 and each business year 2013 (attached Form 4), the “political tax amount” in the “political tax amount” in paragraph 2 of the attached Table shall be revoked, respectively.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 70% shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 30% shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On June 12, 2015, the Defendant’s first value-added tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on June 12, 2015

0,000,000,000, 2012 Value-Added Tax (including additional taxes) for the second period of 2012, 200,000,000, 1, 2013

value-added tax (including additional tax), KRW 0,000,000,000, and KRW 2nd value-added tax (including additional tax) in 2013

0,000,000,000 won, value-added tax for 1, 2014 (including additional tax),00,000,000 won, and 2012

Corporate tax of the year 0,000,000,000, corporate tax of the business year 2013, 0,000,000,000, and 2014

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 000,000,000 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance court, the part “from 71 to 72 ..... as seen earlier, it is inevitable to cancel the entire text thereof” is as follows.

. As seen earlier, the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2012, the part concerning each tax invoice issued by each plaintiff from metal in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2012, the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2013, each of the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2013, the part concerning △△△, the industry, and each tax invoice issued by each plaintiff in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2013, and the part concerning the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2012 and the amount calculated in excess of the legitimate principal tax in the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2012, and the part concerning

The legitimate amount of tax in relation to the imposition of each of the value-added taxes in this case calculated by reflecting the above points is as stated in the "total amount of tax" as shown in the "total amount of tax" as stated in paragraph (1) of this case, and the legitimate amount of tax in relation to the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2012 and 2013 of this case is as stated in the "Justifiable amount of tax" as stated

Therefore, among the imposition of value-added tax in the instant case and the imposition of corporate tax in the business year 2012 and the business year 2013, each of the above legitimate amounts should be revoked as it is unlawful.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no ground.