Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-6091 ( October 18, 2016)

Cho High-2014 Middle-5066 (2014.03.04)

Based on expenditure subject to value-added tax, the amount of proportional distribution shall be calculated according to the ratio of sales, and input tax shall not be deducted for excess purchases.

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is that the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the essential difference between the corporate tax and the value-added tax, on the basis of the Plaintiff’s sales ratio, and the input tax amount cannot be deducted for the purchase exceeding the amount.

Article 60 (Scope of Purchase Tax Amount) Article 48 (Non-Inclusion of Joint Expenses in Calculation of Losses) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2016-Nu-39186 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

o Head of the tax office

2016.08.25

2, 2016.22

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 imposition of each value-added tax by the defendant on the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows, except for dismissal or addition of some of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

○, No. 3, No. 17, “The amount exceeding the Plaintiff’s apportionment ratio out of the research costs of this case” is “the amount exceeding the Plaintiff’s apportionment ratio out of the expenditures subject to value-added tax among the research costs of this case.”

In ○○, Section 3, Section 22 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) was deleted, and Section 23 was added to “The imposition of each value-added tax listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).”

Part 4, Chapter 17, "before the amendment," shall add "before the amendment, hereinafter the same shall apply."

Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 355 of Jun. 28, 2013) stipulates that "Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 35

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.