Seoul Administrative Court-2016 Guhap51245 (Law No. 12, 2016)

This case’s transaction is a processing transaction, and the Plaintiff received only a tax invoice from another corporation after the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the steel from the existing purchaser.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant steel bars from a new business entity, not a pre-existing purchasing entity, and both parties are normal transactions by filing a normal return and payment of value-added tax. However, according to the circumstances where the Plaintiff had long traded with a new business entity that actually supplied the steel bars without any reason to do so, the party that actually supplied the steel bars is the pre-existing purchasing entity, and the tax invoice of the instant case is deemed different from the fact.

Articles 14 and 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2016Nu63141 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

Defendant, Appellant

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap51245 decided August 12, 2016

March 15, 2017

April 5, 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 is revoked. Each disposition of the second instance value-added tax on September 12, 2014 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, ○○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○, and ○○○○, each of the dispositions taken by the Defendant on September 12, 2013

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for dismissal or addition as follows.

○ 2 4 Myeon-dong 1506-13 " ○○-gu ○○-dong 1506-13" means 30,603-1, ○○-ro.

○ 3rd 6th 6th 6th 8th east as follows.

1) XX, as at May 23, 2013, Hongdong, a representative director of the Seoul ○○○-dong, 23-29, left the office and added real estate development business, etc. to its business purpose. On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the address of its principal office to the head office at the time of the Plaintiff’s head office, and supply of the instant steel bars was completed on December 19, 2013 following the change of the representative director at the time of the change of the representative director on several occasions. Meanwhile, the change of school was the representative director of Y, who was engaged in sales business, such as steel bars, and at the time of the change of the principal office of Y, the head office of Y was the same as the head office of the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff.

○ 4 pages 1 and 1, 2, and 3 of evidence No. 10 shall be added to the 2nd 4th 2nd .

The ○ 4th to 13th parallels are as follows:

① The Plaintiff’s representative director: (a) ordered and supplied the instant steel bars to Y in the course of tax investigation; (b) after such purchase was supplied to Z, the tax invoice was issued in the name of Y’s representative director changed from Y’s Y’s Z; and (c) the Plaintiff stated that the transaction amount was deposited into the account of Y. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s statement means that the Plaintiff was aware of the supply of the instant steel bars from Y around December 5, 2013, which was after the initial supply date; (c) although there was an agreement on the purchase of Y and the instant steel bars, it cannot be deemed that the instant steel bars was concluded between the Plaintiff and Y, even if the Plaintiff appeared from Y after the initial supply date, it cannot be deemed that the sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Y. Rather, Y was asked in the name of Y, not Y, but did not hear any explanation.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.