logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.05.12 2015구합783
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name “B” from December 3, 2008.

B. From April 2009 to September 2010, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 1,392,813,635 from Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) as indicated in the following table, and subsequently declared and paid the value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

(Units: 21,380,636 154,545264,09,091 514,542,92,909,9338,256,454 in 2010, 2009, second period (7-9) 2, 2009 (10-12) 2, 2009 (10-12) 2, 2009

C. The Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 197,441,223 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). On October 1, 2013, on the ground that the said purchase tax invoice is a tax invoice issued without real transaction, the Defendant did not deduct the relevant input tax amount, and issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff on October 1, 2013 of value-added tax of KRW 8,904,520, value-added tax for the first period of October 1, 2009, value-added tax of KRW 14,465,810, value-added tax for the second period of 2009, value-added tax of KRW 5,358,200, value-added tax for the first period of 2010, value-added tax of KRW 12,120,540 for the second period of 20

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (Unit: 209, 209, 209, 2009, 12, 2010, 201, 2019, 201, 2735, 475, 475, 26, 24, 09163, 94, 409, 409, 201, 2009, 209, 209, 209, 12, 2010 (1 to 6, 2010)

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on December 23, 2013 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 12, 2014, but was dismissed on October 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion was based solely on the revenue and expenditure books unilaterally prepared by the Nonparty Company and the certificate signed by the Plaintiff by force, but the financial transaction details submitted by the Plaintiff.

arrow