Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-102513 (Law No. 17 August 2016)

The disposition of non-deduction of input tax amount is appropriate and not contrary to the principle of tax equality.

The burden of proving the invalidity is against the Plaintiff, and the disposition that deducts the input tax amount for the increased receipt of the tax invoice than the actual transaction is legitimate, and as the other party's tax office has properly handled it, it does not violate the principle of fair taxation.

Daejeon High Court Decision 2016Nu12224 Invalidity of the Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Park 00

00. Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Guhap102513 Decided 17, 2016

December 01, 201

d. 2, 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. On June 3, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition of refusal against the Plaintiff is null and void among the disposition of imposition of KRW 000,000 for the first term value-added tax for the year 2009, KRW 000 for the second term value-added tax for the year 2009, KRW 000 for the first term value-added tax for the year 201, KRW 000 for the second term value-added tax for the year 2011, KRW 000 for the second term value-added tax for the year 201, KRW 1,000 for the first term value-added tax for the year 200 for the global income tax for the year 209, KRW 000 for the global income tax for the year 200 for the refund of value-added tax for the year 200 on June 8, 2013.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the parts as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts used or added;

A. The part to be dried

1) On April 19, 2013, the first instance court ordered "No. 12, 2014" in the second instance judgment to " April 19, 2013."

2) According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff appears to have received a purchase tax invoice stating the increased amount than the actual purchase price paid to MM as the supply price, in light of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments in Part 6 through 9 of Part 5 of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff purchased drugs from MM, and actually purchased them with the amount applying the discount rate of 35% at the base price (the actual supply price), but the tax invoice was issued with the amount applying the discount rate of 15% only to the base price (the issue price). However, although the Plaintiff and MM will adjust the difference between the actual purchase price and the actual purchase price paid to MM as the price price, the Plaintiff would have actually paid the price for MM as the actual purchase price, not the actual purchase price for MM would have been paid to the Plaintiff.

B. Additional part (Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of addition to the trial)

According to the legal principles of the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s taxation disposition against the purchaser and the seller on the same issue transaction is consistent. As to the transaction related to the instant case, the head of the tax office acknowledges that the total sale of MM’s Plaintiff is KRW 000,000, and the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s purchase total purchase of MM as KRW 000, respectively, and thus, the Plaintiff’s additional burden of value-added tax on the difference of KRW 000, the previous taxation disposition against the purchaser (the instant disposition) asserts that the previous disposition against the purchaser is null and void due to apparent and serious defects contrary to the Value-Adde

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the purport of the entry of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8 and the entire argument, namely, (i) the determination of the reduction of the sales price to the seller refers to the refund to the National Treasury of value-added tax. As such, the head of the tax office of the tax office of e-mail seems to have to have to have to reduce only the portion clearly specified by the processing sales out of the sales price of MM, which is the seller, and (ii) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is clearly and seriously defective solely on the ground that the difference between the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction amount and the corrective amount of MM sales price, which is the customer, is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction amount, due to

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.