Busan District Court 2016Guhap22606 ( October 20, 2017)

a tax invoice issued in the name of the nominal lender shall be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice.

(1) A tax invoice issued in the name of a nominal lender is not deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, and it is not recognized that there was no negligence due to the failure to know that the tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice. The imposition of an unfair under-reported additional tax is illegal.

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Nu24264 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Appellant-Appellants

○○○○ Corporation

Appellant-Appellant

Doegi Tax Director

Busan District Court Decision 2016Guhap22606 Decided October 20, 2017

2018.05.09

2018.06.20

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2012 exceeds KRW 812,453,626 of the imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2012, the amount exceeding KRW 812,453,626 of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2012, the amount exceeding KRW 796,260,134 of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2012, and the amount exceeding KRW 259,086,930 of the imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2013, the amount exceeding KRW 215,523,387 of the imposition

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 9/10 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax on October 1, 2015 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The same shall apply to the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the statement in the first instance court’s judgment; (b) the evidence submitted by the first instance court is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion and there is no evidence to support the fact that the evidence submitted by the first instance court was added to the statement in the evidence No. 67 and 68; and (c) the evidence submitted by the first instance court is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion and there is no evidence to support it; and (d) the judgment portion on the general under-reported penalty tax for the first term portion in 2012 is the corresponding part of the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except

Pursuant to Article 12, “The penalty tax for underreporting for the first term portion in 2012 x 10% for underreporting for the first term portion in 2012 x 53,718,178” (i.e., 537,181,780 for underreporting for the first term portion in 2012 x 10%) x “the penalty tax for underreporting for the first term portion in 2012 49,272,524 for the first term portion in 2012 x 492,725,245 for underreporting for the first term portion in 2012

○ From Nos. 13 to 2 and 3, “The penalty tax for underreporting that has to be revoked by the country” is ① 161,154,534 for the first term of 2012 (214,872,712 for the first term of 2012 - the penalty tax for underreporting 53,718,178 for the general underreporting - the penalty tax for underreporting 147,817,574 for the first term of 2012 (197,090,098 - the penalty tax for underreporting 49,272,524 for the general underreporting - the penalty tax for underreporting 2012)”

“The portion exceeding KRW 79,166,666 of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 (= KRW 960,271,200 - KRW 161,154,534) of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2012” x “the portion exceeding KRW 812,453,626 of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2012” x “the amount exceeding KRW 960,271,200 of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 (= KRW 960,271,200 - KRW 147,817,574)”

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that partially different conclusions are unfair. Therefore, since the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, it is decided to accept part of the defendant's appeal and change the judgment of the court of first instance