Incheon District Court 2012Guhap4023 (10 January 2013)

Early High Court Decision 2012J 1089 ( October 18, 2012)

It is not possible to recognize the plaintiff's good faith and negligence that has received a false tax invoice by the old supplier.

(1) The instant tax invoice constitutes “tax invoice entered differently from the facts entered falsely by the former supplier.” The Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence cannot be recognized in light of the following: (a) the instant tax invoice constitutes “tax invoice entered differently from the facts entered falsely by the former supplier; and (b) the Plaintiff did not receive any data on the purchase place of old interest or any guidance documents prepared in the upper end of the year and did not endeavor to verify

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu367 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAA

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap4023 Decided January 10, 2013

May 30, 2013

June 27, 2013

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 of value-added tax of KRW 0000 on November 11, 201 against the plaintiff on November 201 shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable and acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the tax invoice in this case is not true in the appellate court, and even if not, the plaintiff did not know that the name of the tax invoice in this case was disguised, and that the disposition in this case was unlawful on different premise.

However, according to the evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance cited above, the plaintiff can sufficiently prove that OO received the tax invoice of this case on the part of OO even though he did not receive the OO, and the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the facts entered falsely by the supplier. Meanwhile, the tax invoice of this case is deemed to be a tax invoice which is different from the facts entered falsely by the supplier. In addition, the plaintiff's additional tax invoice of 16, 17, 17, 18-1 through 5, 18, 18-5, and it is insufficient to find that the plaintiff was unaware of the above circumstances, and that there was no negligence, and there is no evidence to prove it, and the dispositions of this case on the ship of this case are legitimate. Accordingly, the plaintiff's argument cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.