logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.25 2014구합972
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s 209 value-added tax against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2012 was KRW 355,226,220, and KRW 1,200, respectively.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity from September 3, 2009 to run a business for the purpose of the wholesale business of non-ferrous metals.

B. In filing the return of the second half of 2009, the first half of 2010, and the second half of 2010, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount related to the purchase tax invoice of KRW 18,968,237,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the output tax amount.

C. However, from September 23, 2009, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China conducted a tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff, and the purchaser of this case constitutes a so-called "large Carbon Business" which discontinues the business without paying the value-added tax after reporting the sales without short-term purchase. While the purchaser of this case knows that the purchaser of this case continues to engage in the business for the purpose of acquiring value-added tax, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the purchaser of this case and notified the Defendant of the outcome that the deduction of the input tax amount constitutes an object of non-deductible because it violates the good faith principle under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Accordingly, on March 19, 2012, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 355,226,220 of the value-added tax for 209, computed without deducting the input tax amount related to the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount, and KRW 626,25,830 of the value-added tax for 1st year, 2010, and KRW 1,376,314,710 of the value-added tax for 2010.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 16, 2012. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number in case of a tentative number) and arguments.

arrow