beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Suwon District Court 2015Guhap3687 (Law No. 12, 2016)
Title
The Plaintiff is a person who provided the instant construction service with a continuous and repeated intent with the business form to create added value.
Summary
Most of the money paid as the construction cost of this case is deemed to be reverted to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a person who provided the construction work of this case with continued and repeated intent in the form of business to create added value.
Related statutes
Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act
Cases
2016Nu64050 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
Plaintiff
KimA
Defendant
o Head of the tax office
Conclusion of Pleadings
October 27, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
November 24, 2016
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 second added value in September 5, 2012 against the plaintiff on September 5, 2012
The imposition of tax of KRW 15,065,320 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.
1) The Plaintiff corrected the purport of the claim in the trial.
- 2-
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for adding or closing some of the following, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
○ Following the second 11th “Incompetence,” the second 11th “incompetence, through an objection on December 7, 2012.” The third 10th 3rd 16th Does “Evidence 16 to 16th 19.”
○ “Transferer (Plaintiff)” in column 1 of column 4 of the first page shall be deemed to be “Transferer (OB)”. The following shall be added to the following acts of column 5, 16 of the 4 page 5:
6) The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the largestCC and the OB in collusion with the Plaintiff to evade the tax by making the Plaintiff as the subcontractor and making the Plaintiff pay the value-added tax. However, the Plaintiff was found to have been suspected of having committed a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the lowerCC and the OB were found to have been sentenced to a final decision.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.