Suwon District Court 2014Guhap1087 (2015.09)

It is not proven that the actual transactions are not proven because the prosecutor's investigation conducted a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of insufficient evidence.

(As the judgment of the first instance is the same as the judgment of the first instance) Even if the prosecutor’s office received a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds of insufficient evidence as a result of the prosecutor’s investigation, it is difficult to deem the actual

2015Nu33495 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ Industrial Company

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap1087 Decided January 9, 2015

September 24, 2015

October 8, 2015

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 disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 131,248,440 for the second period of December 1, 2011 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court's judgment is as follows. Part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and part of the judgment is dismissed.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, civil action, because it is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance other than the addition.

The reference shall be made pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Act.

(2) The main part shall be the part

○ Decision 201, No. 6 of the first instance court's second instance court's decision, "Bnb○" is regarded as "Bnb○".

The judgment of the court of first instance is based on each "○○○ amp, ample-, ample-, ample-, 12" in 10, 3, 5, 4, 3, 9, 11, and 12, respectively.

Parts to be added

○ The fact, “the fact,” in paragraph 20 of the 3rd judgment of the first instance court, is “the fact,” followed:

shall be added.

○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, has no record of engaging in the scrap metal business, and substantial business is ○○.

The fact that the Plaintiff’s auditor, ○○, retired from T&C appears to have been solely in charge of the business, and Kim○ is a fraud.

The value-added tax is imposed on the Plaintiff’s establishment details in connection with a transaction with an ○○ M&C with a bomb;

The ○○○ New ○○ of the ○ M&C is a corporation that reduces a certain margin to himself/herself.

1) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 9, the plaintiff was made by making it clear that the statement of "the plaintiff's statement on December 13, 2013" was a clerical error as of December 3, 2012. The plaintiff stated to the effect that "the plaintiff was made by making it clear that it was a clerical error as of December 3, 2012". The plaintiff received a certain amount of sales fee from ○○ M&C without any separate purchase fund and paid the remainder to the instant trading agency, and the parties secured the closure after paying it to the instant trading agency, which is a company with a large amount of carbon, and the parties secured the closure. The plaintiff did not actually receive the closure from the instant trading party, and the fact that ○ M&C or its sales was transported directly from the actual purchasing agency of the instant transaction parties to the instant transaction.

2. Conclusion

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