beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of additional dues, corporate tax, etc. shall be dismissed, respectively.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the same line manufacturing business in 531-1, Masung-si, Masung-si.
B. From the second to the first half of the year 2013, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice equivalent to KRW 1,626,473,00 from A during the taxable period of value-added tax, KRW 1,487,470,00 from B, and KRW 369,70,00 from C, and the purchase tax invoice equivalent to KRW 369,70,00 from C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax invoice”; the above purchaser was referred to as “the instant purchaser”; when the said purchaser is individually named, the said input tax amount was deducted from the output tax amount at the time of filing the return of value-added tax for the said taxable period, and included the said purchase amount as deductible expenses at the time of filing the return of corporate tax for year 2013 and year 2014.
C. As a result of the investigation into the data on the instant purchaser, the Commissioner of the Central Regional Tax Office, etc.: (a) confirmed that the said purchaser received the processed tax invoice without a real transaction; and (b) notified the Defendant of the relevant taxation data; (c) on June 5, 2015, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff on the basis of the investigation, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax for the two-year period of 2013 at KRW 152,325,350, and the value-added tax for the first year of 2014 at KRW 42,293,00,00, respectively, for the same reason, by applying the penalty tax for the said purchase amount to be recognized as deductible expenses, and by applying the penalty tax for the failure to provide documentary evidence, notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the additional tax for the corporate tax for the year 2013, KRW 17,432,520, and KRW 52,240,350.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation disposition”) D.
On March 10, 2016, the Tax Tribunal did not know that the purchaser of this case was a disguised business operator.