Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap53814 (Law No. 19, 2016)

A even if the purchase of the product is assumed as a processing transaction, the sales cannot be concluded as a whole processing transaction.

(1) The mere fact that a transaction was made with an enterprise suspected of being accused of material facts or that it was made in the course of a transaction in which a bomban company exists cannot be readily concluded as a processing transaction for the purpose of disguised actual transaction of bomban business.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Tax Invoice]

2016Nu62926 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

August 19, 2016

November 22, 2016

December 6, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,00,000 for the first period of 2012 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2014, KRW 200,000 for the second period of 200,000,000 for the second period of 2012, and KRW 1,000,000 for the second period of 200,000 for the second period of 2013, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Part 6 of the Decision of the first instance court No. 14 "," and the following addition:

In order to process goods, each of the contract was entered into with △△ Company and ○○○○ for the processing of goods. If the Plaintiff received only false tax invoices without performing real transactions, then there seems to be no reason to conclude unnecessary contracts;

○ From Part 6 of the first instance judgment to Part 5 "B", the following addition:

As evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff was actually supplied, the Plaintiff submitted monthly inventory and major status of CCTV photographs, CCTV photographs, text messages and Kakakakao Stockholm messages, transportation card details, the details of use of Kwikset services, the current status of sales by date and the details of actual deposit payments, and the details of disbursement of test results.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.