Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-63130 ( November 09, 2017)

Whether false tax invoices are tax invoices and imposition of unfair underreporting are legitimate

(1) The first instance court's decision is the tax invoice that is different from the fact, and the plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the name was entered in the tax invoice, and the portion of the penalty tax for unlawful underreporting among the disposition in this case is illegal.

2017Nu8588 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○○ Company

O Head of tax office

January 9, 2017

August 28, 2018

September 18, 2018

1. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant revoked the judgment of the first instance on the part exceeding 15,894,890 won of the imposition of value-added tax of 18,511,190 won on the Plaintiff on June 30, 2011, and dismissed the instant lawsuit corresponding to that part.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 20% is borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition of imposition of KRW 18,511,190 (including additional taxes) that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on June 30, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

[] The part against the Plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 15,894,890, which was rendered on June 30, 201 to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2016, revoked the part of KRW 15,894,890, among the imposition disposition of KRW 1

[Defendant] The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written or added. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

○ The 8th written judgment of the first instance court, the 15th mechanical devices, respectively, shall be 'the installation services of the mechanical devices'.

○ From the second bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, 3 to 4 'unfair and minor tax' is referred to as 'unfair and underreporting penalty tax'.

○ The following shall be added at least 3 pages of the first instance judgment:

E. On March 19, 2018, while the appeal of this case was pending, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part of the judgment of the first instance court against the Defendant, that is, the part exceeding 872,100 won of the general underreporting penalty tax of KRW 3,488,400, thereby reducing the instant disposition to KRW 15,894,890 (= 18,511,190 - 2,616,300).

○ At the first instance court judgment, two pages 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2,

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit and the defendant's appeal as to the part exceeding 15,894,890 won among the disposition of this case

of this section. Whether the

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

The Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance on March 19, 2018, which was pending in the instant case, thereby correcting the instant disposition to KRW 15,894,890, as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant’s revocation claim on the part of the instant lawsuit, which was revoked as above, is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, since it seeks revocation of the disposition, which does not exist

The defendant's appeal is also against the disposition which is already excluded from the object of the adjudication, and it becomes illegal as there is no interest in the appeal.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The reasoning for this part of this Court's judgment is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the stated in the reasoning other than the parts added or modified below (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition" in this paragraph). Thus, the instant disposition is limited to the imposition of KRW 15,894,890 remaining after the reduction or correction

○ At the fourth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, 3 '3 '3 '2, 200' is used as '2, 3, and 4 '2' and '3 '4 '2,000 '2,000 '2,000 '2,000 '2,000' and '3 '3 '

○ The 5th written judgment of the first instance court stated 'the 5th written judgment', and in this court, the tax invoice of this case also testified 'the 5th written judgment of the first instance court.'

○ From the 5th bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, the evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 2 of Category A 8, 9, and 2 of Category B are used as evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11 (including paper numbers), and evidence Nos. 2 and 5 of Category B, and the statement of the same conduct is added to the witness of the first instance trial**.

○ The judgment of the first instance court 6~3~4 of the machinery and equipment .... ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... .... ..... .... ....

* ‘The fact that 6-7-8 of the judgment of the first instance court ‘6-7-8' appears* ‘the fact that the business was commenced on August 9, 2010 and did not run the business one year after the business was conducted.' This court made testimony that there was no fact that the representative of the plaintiff was done before the conclusion of the contract in this court.

○ Judgment of the first instance court 6th to 8th 9th 'the contract for the supply of machinery' has been amended into 'the contract for the installation of machinery'.

○ 10 shall be deleted from 6 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

○ From 10 10 m3 to 9 m3 m3 m30 m30 m30 m30 m30 m30 m3.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case, which seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition exceeding 15,894,890 won, is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed. Since the part concerning the amount of tax revoked ex officio in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the part concerning the amount of tax revoked in the above judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and all appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed. Since the remaining parts except this part in the judgment of the court of first instance are justified in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. As to the bearing of litigation costs, Articles 8 (2) and 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Articles 98, 104, and 105 of the