Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-72965 (Law No. 29, 2016)

Review-department -2014-0086 (Law No. 25, 2014.08)

Since the name lending is insufficient to recognize that it was not involved in the operation of the workplace at all, there is a lack of evidence to recognize it otherwise.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the actual business operator was named as an employee of the workplace, and that he was not involved in the operation of the workplace at all, and there is no evidence to recognize otherwise.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-37562 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

Bosa

s. Head of the tax office

January 29, 2016

June 29, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's second added value in March 7, 2014 to the plaintiff as of March 7, 2014.

Value-added tax of KRW 7,324,90 and KRW 3,620,00 on April 1, 2014; and

Each disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding some contents as follows.

Parts to be added

(7) The evidence No. 22 of the Plaintiff’s No. 17 of the transaction statement on the CC bank account in the name of the Plaintiff No. 17 is merely a part of the Plaintiff’s use, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe it as it is. Moreover, it is insufficient to recognize that the pertinent withdrawal amount is in accordance with the direction of HBB or expenses required for the operation of the place of business. The each statement of the evidence No. 23 and No. 24 of the Plaintiff’s No. 17 of the first instance court judgment is insufficient to recognize that HB, who is not the Plaintiff, used the relevant Plaintiff’s card for the period from February 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.