Incheon District Court 2012Guhap4474 (2013.02.15)

early 2012 Middle 2234 (25. 2012.06)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff may be recognized when the supplier of Dong Scbyps receives a false tax invoice different from the fact stated falsely.

In the payment method of this case, ordinary advance payment or payment is made on or after the trading day or immediately after the payment. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid the transaction price one month later, and that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to conduct an investigation, despite the fact that the Plaintiff was engaged in scrap metal wholesale business for not less than five years, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the actual supplier of the goods, or that there was a suspicion as to whether the actual supplier

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu8532 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAA

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap4474 Decided February 15, 2013

August 22, 2013

August 29, 2013

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 defendant's imposition of value added OOOO on February 6, 2012 against the plaintiff on February 6, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable and acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case based on a different premise is unlawful, as long as there is no special circumstance to suspect whether the BB is data, and that the plaintiff did not confirm the business place of BB, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be negligent by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff constitutes a party to the trade with good faith and negligence.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the beneficiary did not know the actual name of the supplier solely on the basis of the fact that the beneficiary did not know of the actual name of the supplier, as it did not appear that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the transaction was conducted in the first place of business, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the transaction was conducted in the first place of business, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that it was conducted in the first place of business, because the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that it was conducted in the first place of business, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that it was conducted in the second place of business, and that it was conducted in the second place of business, based on the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the BB, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that it was conducted in the second place of business, and that it was conducted in the second place of business after the lack of supply, and that it was conducted in the first place of business to ensure the quantity of the Plaintiff, as the first place of business that it was conducted in the second place of business.