Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Busan District Court 201Guhap1383 ( December 08, 2011)
Case Number of the previous trial
Cho High Court Decision 2010Du4081 ( October 10, 2011)
Title
The instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice by the supplier, and the Plaintiff’s declaration and negligence are not proven.
Summary
In light of the fact that the suppliers that issued the instant tax invoice do not have to purchase at all or less purchase compared to sales, etc., the instant tax invoice is deemed to be a false tax invoice by the supplier, and it is not proven that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know that the
Related statutes
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Cases
2012Nu164 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
Plaintiff and appellant
XX
Defendant, Appellant
Head of the Northern District Tax Office and one other
Judgment of the first instance court
Busan District Court Decision 201Guhap1383 Decided December 8, 2011
Conclusion of Pleadings
June 15, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
June 29, 2012
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The imposition of the value-added tax of 000 won for the second period portion of 2009 against the plaintiff on September 9, 2010 by the head of the defendant North Busan District Tax Office and the imposition of 000 won for global income tax for the year 2009 against the plaintiff on September 9, 2010 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court
The key issue of this case is whether the tax invoice of this case constitutes a "tax invoice different from the fact" under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.
As to this issue, the first instance court found that ① the suppliers issuing the tax invoice of this case were guilty of the facts that the suppliers did not purchase at all or under-purchase compared with the sales, ② the short-term sales of resources are too excessive and there are no material for purchase, ③O appears to be an enterprise with no substance, ③ the short-term sales are too excessive, and the representative KimA was accused of the violation of the law, ④ the fact that there is no substance of the place of business, ④ the representative of YYB is still in flight, ④ the fact that the representative of △B was found to have lent the tax invoice of this case, ⑤ the Plaintiff was found to have been guilty of the violation of the law by issuing the tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff without any transaction, ④ the Plaintiff’s husband was not guilty of the violation of the law, and the Plaintiff could not be punished for the actual business due to lending the Plaintiff’s name, and the Plaintiff could not be found to have been aware of the fact that there was no false statement or verification on the disguised sales, etc. of the Plaintiff and the purchaser of this case.
2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court
The judgment of the court of first instance, which held that the instant tax invoice is not true, is justifiable even considering the Plaintiff’s assertion supplemented in the trial. Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.