Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-6712 ( December 24, 2015)

Additional-2014-0185 (Law No. 16, 2015)

Unless the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are confirmed to be different, the plaintiff's negligence and the actual tax invoice cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.

(As in the first instance judgment, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are the Plaintiff’s negligence and the actual supplier cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-31564

Kim 00

00. Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-6712 ( December 24, 2015)

2016.06.22

2016.13

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 1,050,580, value-added tax imposed on the plaintiff on July 15, 2014; KRW 1,019,360 for the first term of 2010; KRW 976,890 for the second term of 201; KRW 1,020,570 for the second term of 201; KRW 620,090 for the first term of 2012; and KRW 367,390 for the second term of 2012 for the second term of 201.

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.