Daejeon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-103896 ( April 19, 2017)

Fees paid to subscribers shall be excluded from the value-added tax base in consideration of the amount of discount;

Even in cases where the tax authority’s erroneous taxation disposition is unlawful as a result of the calculation and determination of the tax base and amount of tax, if the tax amount imposed and collected does not exceed the scope of the legitimate calculation amount, and the wrong method does not vary in the scope of the tax unit and the reason for the disposition, it does not constitute unlawful disposition of imposition and collection within the scope of the justifiable

Articles 29, 37 and 38 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon High Court-2017-Nu-11327 ( October 25, 2017)

AA

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

. 14, 2017

October 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 58,615,370 won, value-added tax of 1, 2014 for the plaintiff on August 1, 2016, of 102,482,580 won, value-added tax of 2, 2014, of 61,767,420 won, and value-added tax of 13,825,30 won for value-added tax of 2, 2015 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are justified in the judgment of the court of first instance, which states that the disposition of this case is not illegal even if all the evidence presented in the court of first instance is examined together with the plaintiff's assertion. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth below

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case is due to the mistake of an accounting office that delegated the Plaintiff to handle the tax, and thus, at least the penalty tax is unlawful.

B. Determination

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed in accordance with the provisions of the tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability without justifiable grounds in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered. However, in cases where there are circumstances where a taxpayer is deemed to have not been aware of his/her duty, or where there are circumstances where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty to pay taxes to the party concerned, etc., and where there is a justifiable reason that it is not attributable to his/her duty to pay taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du13842, Feb. 27, 2014).

In relation to the instant case, even if the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff are recognized, such circumstance alone is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason as to the erroneous return and payment of value-added tax by receiving the input tax deduction based on the total amount of the cost of delivery of the device without deducting the instant fee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.