District Court-2015-Guhap-8782 (2016.07)

Cho-2015-China-480 ( December 09, 2015)

The purchase tax invoice of this case is different from the fact.

The actual supplier of the goods entered in the purchase tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice prepared differently from the fact by the supplier, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed a bona fide transaction party.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Nu51902 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AB by the receiver BB of a rehabilitation company

CCC Head of the tax office

District Court 2015Guhap8782

November 30, 2016

December 14, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 19,694,70 for the second quarter of July 1, 2011 against the plaintiff, KRW 2,121,340 for the corporate tax of KRW 2,121,340 for the year 201, KRW 161,760,370 for the first quarter of July 201, and KRW 17,945,440 for the corporate tax of KRW 201 for the year 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court’s ruling, except for the following dismissal, shall be the reasons for the first instance judgment:

As such, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

The "Plaintiff" of the 7th page 2 of the 2nd page is "A Co., Ltd. (A, May 16, 2012)".

The rehabilitation company does not distinguish between the plaintiff and the rehabilitation company and the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is referred to as the plaintiff) shall be referred to as "."

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.