Incheon District Court-2015-Gu Group-50143 (20 September 20, 2016)

There is no fact that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice is different from that of the actual supplier.

(Summary) It is insufficient to find that the name of the supplier was not known to the fact that the name of the supplier was different from that of the actual supplier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2.2 Doese

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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. The value-added tax that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2014 for the second time in 2011.

The imposition of KRW 14,074,140 shall be revoked.

1. The plaintiff's assertion of the judgment of the court of first instance, etc. is also based on the court's attitude of witness's testimony.

not knowing that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice is different from that of the actual supplier;

It is insufficient to find that there was no actual evidence, and to add a judgment that there was no evidence to find otherwise.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as

420 shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with this conclusion.

The judgment is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.