logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017. 04. 03. 선고 2016두63163 판결
(심리불속행) 사업자등록이 되어 있지 않은 자와 거래를 하였더라도 그 자가 사업자의 지위에 있으면 증빙미수취 가산세 부과는 정당함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Busan High Court-2016-Nu21442 ( November 23, 2016)

Title

(C) If the person is in the position of the enterpriser even if he/she has transacted with a person without business registration, the penalty tax to be paid in the absence of evidence should be imposed.

Summary

(Summary) If a person who trades without documentary evidence is in a position acceptable to the business operator, such as the type, size, and shape of the transaction, even though the person has not registered his/her business, the penalty tax to be collected without documentary evidence is legitimate.

Related statutes

Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but there is no reason or reason to exclude the reasons provided in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal (the ground of appeal that the purchasing agencies of this case are actual traders is not only the issue of fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below, but also the fact-finding recognized as data in the relevant criminal judgment. In addition, in light of the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the court of first instance that the court below cited by the court below, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have known that the purchasing agencies of this case are not actual traders, and it cannot be deemed to be gross negligence even if he had knowledge of the fact-finding, so the court below's decision that the rejection of imposition of additional tax is not recognized, is acceptable. In addition, in light of the size and content of the transaction, it is presumed that the real trader of this case is an enterpriser provided in Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, so the circumstance that the purchaser constitutes simplified

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the above Act by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow