Suwon District Court 201Guhap1820 ( October 11, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2010Du4080 ( October 11, 2011)

Since the fact that abnormal shipment tickets have not been issued is not verified, it cannot be recognized as good faith or negligence.

(1) The Plaintiff’s purchase price and the Plaintiff’s gas station in the territory of the country of delivery should be indicated in the customer column, but the Plaintiff’s oil station is indicated in the Plaintiff’s oil station. However, the Plaintiff’s oil ticket must be confirmed to the customer on the shipment slip at least to verify whether the oil was sold to the Plaintiff’s purchasing place, and thus, it cannot be recognized as good faith and without fault, even though the oil was not sold to the Plaintiff.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu39044 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AnAA 2 persons

2 others than the Head of the Tax Office;

District Court Decision 2011Guhap1820 Decided October 11, 2011

March 21, 2012

April 18, 2012

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs are filed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2008 imposed on September 1, 2010 on the Plaintiff AA and UBB by the head of the tax office of the Republic of Korea, the disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2008 against the Plaintiff ACC on December 8, 2010, the disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2000 against the Plaintiff AD on September 1, 2010, the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2000 against the Plaintiff AD on November 9, 2010 by the head of the tax office of Nam-ju, and the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2008 against the Plaintiff on February 201, 2010.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as well as Article 8(2) of the same Act.

In addition, ‘the disposition of this case is illegal to deviate from and abuse the scope of discretion' in the end of the fourth second place of theO.

O The following shall be added to the seventh fourth:

(3) Determination on the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Tax imposition is not a discretionary act, but a binding act.The first fiveth (3) of JO 7 is replaced by (4).

2. Conclusion

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.