logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2007. 04. 10. 선고 2006누14645 판결
구매승인서 등의 하자를 알고 있으면서 행한 영세율 매출거래인지 여부[국승]
Title

Whether it is a transaction of zero tax rate with knowledge of the defect in a purchase approval, etc.

Summary

In light of the fact that it is a purchase certificate issued on the basis of a false export contract, etc., it would have been well aware of the fact that it will not be exported from a foreign country, but be distributed in the Republic of Korea.

Related statutes

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2001, which was issued on June 29, 2002 by the defendant, of value-added tax for the first period of 751,375,740 won and value-added tax for the second period of 201, shall be revoked.

Reasons

이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는, 제1심 판결문 중 제12쪽 제20행의 ˝정XX˝를 ˝정XX˝로 고치는 이외에는 제1심 판결문의 이유 기재와 같으므로 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

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

arrow