beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that was established on April 11, 1972 and runs the business of manufacturing printed circuit board.
B. The Plaintiff, in the first taxable period of 2010, delivered the value of supply 6,264,437,534 won in the second taxable period of 2010, during the second taxable period of 2010, and the value of supply 3,429,665,249 won in the first taxable period of 201, and the value of supply 451,063,440 won in the second taxable period of 2012 (hereinafter “the printing circuit of this case”) to Hanyang Industries Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Hanyang Industries”), a Chinese subsidiary of the Chinese company, for the second taxable period of 2010 (hereinafter “the value-added tax”). The Plaintiff reported the export of this case by applying the zero tax rate on the grounds that the transaction constitutes the export of this case (hereinafter “the value-added tax”).
C. After conducting a corporate integration investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that “the instant transaction constitutes “domestic transaction” and “the instant transaction constitutes value-added tax” and Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) does not constitute “goods supplied through a local letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase” and accordingly, deemed that the Plaintiff’s correction of value-added tax of KRW 501,560,300 (including additional tax of KRW 211,825,271; KRW 250,500 (including additional tax of KRW 21,049, value-added tax of KRW 2497,2315,25316,25
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 25, 2014, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on December 11, 2015.
【Legal basis for recognition】