Suwon District Court-2014-Gu 60109 (No. 17, 2015)

Early High Court Decision 2013-China-4351 ( October 27, 2014)

An input tax invoice which is not true but false;

(The same as the first instance judgment) Where all or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the entries on a list of total tax invoices by customer are entered differently from the fact, the input tax amount for the relevant portion and the purchase tax invoices issued under Article 16(1) where the requisite entries under Article 16(1) are entered differently from the fact

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Seoul High Court 2015Nu63076 Revocation of Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

Kimo

o Head of the tax office et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap60109 Decided September 17, 2015

April 27, 2016

f.6.1

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of KRW 55,409,700 (including additional taxes) imposed on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2013 by the head of the tax office on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2013 and the imposition of KRW 6,498,98,980 (including additional taxes) imposed on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2013 by the head of the tax office and the head of the tax office of the Ss. shall revoke each of the imposition of global income tax in

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows, except that the following is added at the end of the 7th decision of the court of first instance.

Although the defendant asserts that the unit price for the closed metal purchased from dmetallic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "dmetallic"), which is another business partner of the plaintiff, is lower than the unit price for the closed metal, it cannot be seen that there is a significant difference in the difference. Also, according to the evidence Nos. 13 and 14, d metal is the maximum purchasing agency of the plaintiff, and the transaction volume with the two sides is smaller than that of the plaintiff. Thus, as alleged by the plaintiff, there is room to regard the twoffs as the first collector, while d metal is the third collection, it is difficult to view that the purchase price from the two sides is relatively low.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

.