beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the “claim” in the first instance court. The first instance court revoked each of the following parts: (a) exceeding 46,694,830 won of value-added tax for the second term, 201; (b) exceeding 75,104,310 won of value-added tax for the first term, 89,916,810 won; (c) exceeding 163,502,100 won of value-added tax for the second term, 2012 exceeding 196,505,440 won of value-added tax for the second term, 201; and (d) exceeding 7,094,510 won of value-added tax for the first term, 5,851,020 won of value-added tax for the first term, 2013; and (e) dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s respective claims.
The scope of this Court's trial is limited to the portion of unfair underreporting, which is the part against the defendant.
2. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the scrap metal business from October 15, 2004 to Kimhae-si B.
B. During the value-added tax period from the second to the first half of 2011, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice amounting to KRW 1,944,431,350 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from both C and five transaction parties, as indicated below, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.
Tax invoices (units: 201) received by the Plaintiff from the business partner name (units: 1,201) in the aggregate C (D) 5,232,50 12,667,700 33,119,850 51,020,050 E (F) 189,349,349,349,000 G (H) 101,873,000 101,873,000 IJ 481,082, 300,481,082,30 K 1,608,608,001,000 K 1,601,070,109,107,8509,41,0404,941,940,405,940,41,004,040,004,040
C. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on the ground that the transaction with the said transaction partner (hereinafter “the instant transaction partner”) was conducted without real transaction, and the instant tax invoice issued by the instant transaction partner constituted a false tax invoice, and on August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff is as follows.