Daegu District Court 2014Guhap382

An input tax amount for an expenditure not related to a business shall not be deducted from the output tax amount under Article 17 (1) and (2) 2 of the Act.

An input tax amount for an expenditure not related to a business shall not be deducted from the output tax amount under Article 17 (1) and (2) 2 of the Act.

Articles 12 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The Daegu High Court-2014-Nu-5225 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Value-Added Tax Refund

Limited liability Company AA

Head of the tax office

Daegu District Court 2014Guhap382

October 17, 2014

November 14, 2014

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 input tax amount of value-added tax for the year 2012 that the defendant against the plaintiff.

All of the imposition of 11,983,00 won and the imposition of 1,188,300 won of the additional tax on a refusal of refund and an excess refund declaration.

The cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if the plaintiff added each description of evidence Nos. 11 through 26 submitted by the court of the first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition, dismissal, and deletion of some contents as follows. As such, it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The second place of the second place of the judgment of the court of first instance added “(275 square meters in the site area was combined with 296-3 square meters in September 17, 2012)” to “296-1 large 126 square meters in Seoyang-do, Seoyang-do, Cheongyang-do, Cheongyang-do, Cheongyang-do, Seoyang-do.”

2. The plaintiff paid 11,830,00 won to the defendant and received 11,983,00 won from the construction cost of the building of this case, and deducted the input tax amount of 11,983,00 won from the tax invoice received (hereinafter referred to as the "market tax invoice") to the defendant, and applied for the refund of value-added tax for the second half of 2012.

○ The second sentence of the first instance court's decision was "No. 12 April 22, 2013" as "No. 16 May 26, 2013." In addition, "No. 17" is added to "the grounds for recognition of No. 18 of the second sentence of the first instance court's decision".

○ Of the fourth table of the decision of the first instance court, 5,983's input tax amount was 119,830', and 1,077's input tax amount was 2,637' in 209.

○ add 2, 4, and 5 to 'the grounds for recognition' of 'the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment'. 'the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment' refers to 'the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment' to 'the 5th sentence of the second instance judgment', 'the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment', 'the 5th sentence of the fifth instance judgment of the first instance judgment', 'the 5th sentence of the fifth instance judgment of the

○ 제1심 판결문 제7쪽 제14행의 '점' 다음에 '⑨ 원고의 대표자 AA은 국내외 주식・채권・기타 수익성 자산에 개인 명의로 투자할 때보다 법인 명의로 투자하는 경우 그 업무처리절차가 간단함에 착안하여 법인 설립을 하였던 것으로 보이는 점(을 제6호 증)'을 추가한다.

2. Conclusion

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