Incheon District Court 2016Guhap50178 ( September 2, 2016)

A disposition that deducts input tax from the fact that matters such as a person who actually supplies are prepared and delivered differently is legitimate;

A disposition that deducts input tax from the actual supplier's fact is legitimate, but an illegal imposition of additional tax for underreporting exceeding the amount of general underreporting tax is illegal.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2016Nu65062 Disposition revoking Value-Added Tax, etc.

Masan0 Stock Company

000 director of the tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2016Guhap50178 Decided September 2, 2016

April 21, 2017

June 2, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s value-added tax amounting to KRW 29,526,880 for the first term of December 1, 2013 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014 (unfair)

The imposition of additional tax for underreporting of KRW 12,549,841, including additional tax for 6,791,040), value-added tax for 2 years 2013 (including additional tax for underreporting of KRW 52,415,877, including additional tax for 30,652,560), and the imposition of KRW 18,721,80 for corporate tax for 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. It is the same as the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant

In the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant, the part of the judgment against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this judgment is just in finding the facts of the first instance court and its determination, considering the testimony of 000 witness of the party concerned and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant to this court, and it is also identical to the reasoning of the first instance court except where the plaintiff and the defendant added a decision that there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff and defendant's appeal are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.