Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-7583 ( October 13, 2017),

Whether the tax invoice complies with the facts is merely a fact-finding, not a legal itself, and not a subject of lawsuit for confirmation.

Whether a tax invoice complies with the facts is merely a fact-finding, not a legal relationship itself, and thus, it is not subject to litigation for confirmation. Even if it is confirmed, res judicata following the final and conclusive judgment against the losing party or litigation period may not be disputed due to the lack of dispute, and it does not constitute litigation

Administrative Litigation Act Article 3 (Classification of Administrative Litigation)

2017Nu37293 Action to verify the return on additional tax appeal

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap7583 decided January 13, 2017

September 13, 2017

September 27, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. From October 0, 2008 to October 0, 2010, the report of purchase tax invoice by each quarter of the attached Form 1 judgment between the defendant and the AAAA is confirmed to be different from the actual transaction.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) the 5th judgment of the court of first instance is amended to "explosive and added"; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows: (c) Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

As the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the instant tax invoices reported by the Plaintiff during the period from October 0, 2008 to October 0, 2010 are the same as the actual transaction.

On the other hand, as recognized in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the lawsuit for confirmation is permitted only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the plaintiff to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant, and the plaintiff to eliminate such apprehension and danger. Thus, the fact that the tax invoice of this case is "tax invoice that conforms to the facts" is not the plaintiff's right or legal relation itself, but the fact that it is "tax invoice that conforms to the facts" is not the plaintiff's right or legal relation itself, and it cannot be viewed as the subject of confirmation lawsuit. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided by the court of first instance as to this conclusion.

The judgment is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.