beta
Title
The tax invoice of this case shall be classified as if the entries are different from the facts.
Summary
(1) It is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of scrap metal under the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of this case is a third party, not each of the transaction parties of this case, and each of the transaction parties of this case is a disguised trader who issued only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff under his own name (the so-called “the so-called “the so-called data”).
Related statutes
Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Cases
2015Nu72162 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
Plaintiff
KimA
Defendant
00. Head of tax office
Conclusion of Pleadings
January 2016
Imposition of Judgment
on October 29, 2016
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax for the second period of June 1, 2011 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013
The imposition of KRW 000 shall be revoked.
Reasons
The court's reasoning for this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation
Article 8 (2) of the Court Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
It is so decided as per Disposition.