logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.10.13 2015두1649
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 22(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that where an entrepreneur issues a tax invoice without supplying any goods or services (subparagraph 2) or where a tax invoice is issued without being supplied with any goods or services (subparagraph 3), an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply shall be imposed as an additional tax.

In light of the fact that the tax invoice system has the function of mutual verification between taxpayers that facilitate the dissemination of sources of income tax and corporate tax as well as value-added tax by exposing transactions between the parties concerned, it imposes an obligation on business operators liable for value-added tax not to issue or receive the tax invoice without the supply of goods or services for the proper exercise of the taxation right and the easy realization of the taxation claim, and if a business operator receives or receives the tax invoice without the supply of goods or services without a justifiable reason, it imposes an administrative sanction on the business operator liable for value-added tax.

Therefore, when the issue is whether there is a justifiable reason to exempt from the additional tax for nonperformance of a tax invoice, the determination of whether the taxpayer’s failure to know the duty is unreasonable, or it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill the duty, and thus, constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the taxpayer into the breach of the duty. The mere fact that the taxpayer was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice was received without the supply of goods or services should not be readily concluded that it constitutes a case where a justifiable reason exists.

2.(a)

Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) C is a distributor D, A, and C.

arrow