It is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff’s instant transaction as a tax invoice transaction different from the fact.

In light of the facts revealed in the instant case, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion because there is a lack of proof that there was a real transaction.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu65765 Disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

AAtech Inc.

CC director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap9672 Decided August 30, 2016

March 15, 2017

April 26, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant:

A. On October 18, 2013, the disposition of imposition of KRW 130,382,850 of corporate tax for the year 2010 and KRW 33,694,371 of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 101,237,316 of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 364,364,934 of value-added tax for the year 201, KRW 6,945,90 of value-added tax for the second period, KRW 30,385, KRW 131 of value-added tax for the year 2012, KRW 4,583,061 of value-added tax for the second period, respectively, shall be revoked;

B. On September 27, 2013, the notice of change in the amount of income, which was disposed of as the bonus of the Representative NoBB, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders cancellation below

The cancellation shall be revoked.

B. The Defendant:

1) On October 18, 2013, the value-added tax of KRW 124,031,149 and value-added tax of KRW 30,614,822, value-added tax of KRW 20,962,221, value-added tax of KRW 3,364,930, value-added tax of KRW 6,945,990, KRW 30,385,130, value-added tax of KRW 1,2012, value-added tax of KRW 4,583,060 for two years, 201, respectively, has been revoked; and

2) On September 27, 2013, KRW 797,160,785 as of September 27, 2010, KRW 47,345,904 as of 201, and KRW 169,568,996 as the bonus of the representative unionB, shall be revoked.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the claim against the Defendant, and No. 1

The appellate court dismissed each claim for revocation in excess of KRW 100,962,21 of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2010, among the imposition disposition of corporate tax for the first term of 2010, and KRW 30,614,822 of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2010, and dismissed the remainder of the plaintiff's claim. Since the plaintiff appealed against the part dismissed, the subject of the judgment of the appellate court is limited to the claim dismissed (the plaintiff filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the first instance court, but the purport of the appeal was modified as above).

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The Plaintiff’s ground for appeal is not significantly different from the assertion in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted to the first instance court is presented in the statement No. 13-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 13-2, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are recognized as legitimate. The reasoning of the judgment in this court is the same as the ground for the judgment in the first instance (excluding the first and second classes 1 through 12). Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 42

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.