Seoul High Court 2013Nu16236 (24 January 24, 2014)

early 2010 Heavy3279 ( October 11, 201)

The tax invoice of this case cannot be recognized as the plaintiff's good faith or negligence with a false tax invoice.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the legal principles on the transaction parties with no fault or negligence in good faith under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014du3488 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

1. ParkA 2. GaB

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu16236 Decided January 24, 2014

June 26, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the disposition on imposition of local income tax against Plaintiff Park Jong-A

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the statutes. If the grounds of final appeal submitted by the appellant does not explain such specific and explicit reasons, it shall be treated as failing to submit the grounds of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da25185, Mar. 9, 2006; 2009Du1607, Nov. 26, 2009).

However, the petition of appeal of this case did not state any grounds for appeal as to the part on imposition of local income tax on Plaintiff Park Jong-A among the judgment below, and does not state any grounds for appeal as to how to violate the law and subordinate statutes. Therefore, among the judgment below, there is no legitimate grounds for appeal as to the part on imposition of local income tax on Plaintiff Park Jong-A, and there is no other reason for illegality subject to ex officio examination.

2. As to the remaining tax disposition

“The lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its holding, and determined that the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiffs operatingCC stations from DD Energy during the taxable period from the first to the second period from 2008 to the second period from 2009 constituted a different tax invoice from the actual supplier under the relevant tax invoice.” In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s above findings of fact and determination are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof in the tax invoice or tax lawsuit, etc.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In cases where a supplier and an actual supplier are different, an input tax amount pursuant to a tax invoice may not be deducted or refundable unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received the tax invoice was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was nominal. Furthermore, the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact that he/she was nominal should be attested by the party who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was insufficient to deem that the Plaintiffs did not know, or did not know, the fact of false name of DD Energy, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the transaction parties with no fault or negligence under the Value-Added Tax Act."

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.