Seoul High Court 2013Nu47094

Seocho 2012west 4977 (O1.08)

The loan that the Plaintiff received is not a service payment.

(1) The main point of this case is that the confirmation of this case, which is the basis of each disposition of this case, cannot be seen as being reasonable and correct as its content as taxation data, and it is difficult to view the key point as being paid as service payment. Rather, it is reasonable to view that the key point amount is the money borrowed by

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014du37986 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

BAAAA

The director of the tax office of Luxembourg

April 9, 2015

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous since the court below made an erroneous fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence and determined that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful, since the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 279,00,000,000, which was received from d○○○,

However, the recognition of facts and the selection of evidence on the premise thereof belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely disputing the fact-finding of the lower court and thus cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal. Therefore, the allegation in the misapprehension of legal principles based on the facts established by the lower court cannot be accepted. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided