logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.11 2016가단21857
세액반환
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

In light of the fact that the value-added tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the amount of value-added tax reduced pursuant to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act belongs to a general taxi transport business entity, who is a business entity, and that where a general taxi transport business entity has not paid the reduced amount of value-added tax lawfully, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the general taxi transport business entity shall additionally collect the unpaid amount of tax reduced and the amount equivalent to the interest accrued therefrom, even though Article 106-7(2) of the same Act provides that “general taxi transport business entity shall pay the reduced amount in cash to the general taxi transport business entity,” the Plaintiff and the designated parties (part of the retirement by the Plaintiff and the designated parties (part of the retirement by the Plaintiff and the designated parties) who are the general taxi transport business entity belonging to the Defendant (one of November 16, 2015), are entitled to receive the reduced amount of value-added tax reduction from the Defendant, who is a general taxi transport business entity. It cannot be said that the Plaintiff and the designated parties have

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3207 Decided March 15, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3207, Mar. 15, 2012). Therefore, even if the Defendant did not lawfully pay the reduced amount of value-added tax to the Plaintiff and the selector in cash, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of the reduced amount of value-added tax directly belongs to the Plaintiff or the Defendant’s right to directly claim the reduction amount of value-added tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of the reduced amount of value-added tax for the second half, the first half,

arrow