Jeonju District Court 2012Guhap2594 (No. 29, 2013)

early 2012 Gwangju 1446 (2012.05.08)

This case’s tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus its original disposition is lawful.

The tax invoice of this case is not related to the plaintiff's output tax amount, but related to the input tax amount, and even if it is recognized that the plaintiff sold the gold bullion, the tax invoice of this case is appropriate for the initial disposition, since there is no evidence to prove that the gold bullion was immediately purchased by the plaintiff.

Article 16 [Tax Invoice] and Tax Amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(B)Revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

Jeonju District Court Decision 2012Guhap2594 Decided May 29, 2013

September 9, 2013

September 30, 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 court is revoked. On December 5, 2011, the defendant imposed the first additional value-added tax on the plaintiff in the year 2010, imposed the imposition of the first additional tax on the plaintiff in the year 2010, the imposition of the first additional tax on the corporate tax in the business year 2010, and the imposition of the first additional tax on the plaintiff in the business year 2012 by the defendant against the plaintiff in November 12, 2012 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 (main sentence) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part of the first instance court's 5th 20 "1, 2, 6, and 7, and 8th 8th 8th 8th 18th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 4th 4th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th.

2. The part to be mard;

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff sold gold-types supplied by BB toCC, and it is difficult to understand how the Plaintiff could sell gold-types supplied by BB if it was possible to understand how the Plaintiff could sell gold-types supplied by BB, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s dispositions of this case, which the Plaintiff reported from BB that the Plaintiff had not actually purchased gold-types from BB, were unlawful, but it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff purchased gold-types from B, and that there was gold-types. The Defendant’s disposition of this case was not made on the premise that there was no gold-types real, but on the premise that the Plaintiff entered the goods that were necessary entries in the tax invoice differently from the fact. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.