Incheon District Court 201Guu2372 (Law No. 23, 2013)

early 2010 Heavy3279 ( October 11, 201)

The tax invoice of this case cannot be recognized as the plaintiff's good faith or negligence with a false tax invoice.

(1) In light of the Plaintiff’s experience of petroleum business, there is no evidence to deem that the actual transaction status and risk of material transactions are well known, and there is no evidence to deem that the actual transaction details of the shipment slip, transaction partners’ location or facilities, etc., and considering the price lower than the market price, the systematic act of the transaction partners, etc., there is negligence in knowing or not knowing the fact of the supplier’s name.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu16236 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

1. ParkA 2. GaB

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap2372 Decided May 23, 2013

January 10, 2014

January 24, 2014

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant revoked each disposition of the first instance value-added tax for the plaintiffs on December 14, 2012, 208, the second value-added tax for the second year of 2008, the first time value-added tax for the first year of 2009, the second time value-added tax for the second year of 2009, the second time value-added tax for the second time of 2009, the second time-added tax for the second time of 2009, and each disposition of the tax for the global income tax for the second time of 208 and the local income tax for the second time of 208.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this judgment are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance as follows in paragraph (2).

2. Parts to be corrected;

"A. To revise the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408 of Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the 11th and 16th of that Act (amended by Act No. 10408 of Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) as the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9485 of Mar. 18, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply)", "(b) to the 11th and 17th of that Act (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010)", "The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9412 of Feb. 6, 2009)", and (c) to the 15th of that Act [attached Form].

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax for the year 2008 among the plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim and the remaining claims of the plaintiff ParkB are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiffs' appeal.