Cheongju District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-2921 ( November 29, 2018)

In the administrative judgment, the criminal judgment which became final and conclusive with respect to the same factual basis is a flexible evidence.

(1)The facts that have been recognized as the criminal facts of the same facts in the administrative judgment are significant evidence, and the facts that are recognized as the criminal facts of the same facts shall not be recognized unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt the criminal facts of the criminal trial in light of other evidences submitted in the administrative judgment.

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes paid under Article 17 of the former Value-Added

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2018Nu1511 Revocation of a disposition to correct and impose value-added tax.

○○○ Incorporated Company

○ Head of tax office

National Rotations

June 12, 2019

July 3, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On August 3, 2016, the disposition that the Defendant imposed the value-added tax on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in this Court while filing an appeal are as follows: “The Plaintiff was actually supplied an oil equivalent to KRW 156,293,636 according to the purchase tax invoice during the 1st taxable period of the value-added tax in 2011 by the Plaintiff,” which is the same as the Plaintiff alleged in the first instance trial.

However, in full view of all the circumstances revealed through the evidence submitted to the court of the first instance and this court, and the following facts: (a) BB, at the construction site of the Plaintiff, stated that “AA oil payment was not made in cash or by account transfer; (b) CCC, which was an employee of the Plaintiff, stated that the amount of oil payment to the AA oil station at the time, would be memory only by account transfer or cash payment; (c) there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of each statement; (b) DDD, which was actually operating the AA oil station, was convicted of the criminal facts of the processed tax invoice receipt including this part; and (d) there is no special circumstance to subsequent the fact-finding, which rejected the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

B. Accordingly, the reasoning for the entry of this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.