Incheon District Court 2010Guhap4401 (Law No. 18, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du3608 ( October 14, 2010)

claim that it is a bona fide trading party shall not be accepted.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not negligent because he did not know or did not know the fact that he was the name of the customer, and if the plaintiff paid little attention, he could have known that he was not the actual supplier.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu31903. Revocation of disposition of imposing value-added tax, etc.

XX

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap4401 Decided August 18, 2011

December 7, 2011

February 8, 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 is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 130,806,600 on July 5, 2009 against the plaintiff on July 5, 2009 (the plaintiff revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 130,806,60 on the second-year value-added tax on the plaintiff on July 5, 2006 at the trial and reduced the purport of the claim by withdrawing the respective disposition of imposition of the

This court's decision is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the reduction part of the claim), and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party with good faith inasmuch as the Plaintiff paid the cost of oil to XX energy and received the normal supply of oil. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not know or did not know that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was in the name of XX energy at the time of trading. Rather, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in doing so. Rather, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the other premise that the Plaintiff started trading with the XX energy on the grounds that the Plaintiff was less at the time of trading, including the Plaintiff’s price collection compared to other trading parties. At the time of supplying the oil, the place of destination is only confirmed the abnormal shipment ticket indicated as the other trading party, and the place of destination was issued with the oil station of this case after the payment of the price was made, and the energy was the business that issued a large quantity of false tax invoices without actually using the oil storage facilities and the transport vehicles. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the other premise is unacceptable.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.