Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-1268 ( November 22, 2016)

Review-department -2015-009 (2015.04.07)

because an officetel has been sold at a discount, it constitutes receipt of a false tax invoice.

(as in the first instance court) It is the receipt of a tax invoice different from the fact that the value of supply is for the sale of an officetel at a discount.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2016Nu77966 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

PostalAA

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap1268 Decided November 22, 2016

August 16, 2017

September 6, 2017

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. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 105,408,00 for the second period of November 10, 2012 against the plaintiff on November 10, 2014 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts among the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

○ From the 20th to the 3th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

○ The fourth decision of the first instance court of the first instance can be accepted, and the following parts to nine shall have been modified as follows:

According to this, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have received at a discount of 1.6 billion won, not the sale price of the instant officetel from ○○ Development, which is 2.7 billion won (supply price) on the instant sales contract. There is room to view that there was a separate legal relationship as to the sales and operation of the instant officetel between ○ Development and ○○○○, an operator thereof, solely on the basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 through 10 and No. 4, and it is difficult to deny the Plaintiff’s above discount sale, and there is no other counter-proof. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.