Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-2373 ( October 24, 2017)

It is difficult to deem that there is justifiable reason to issue a tax invoice to an actual transaction partner, not a person who has been supplied with the actual solvents.

Even if the Plaintiff had taken the external appearance of supplying solvents, the actual supply of solvents is deemed to be a fake petroleum manufacturer. Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice issued in the name of a person, other than a person who actually supplied goods or services.

2017Nu44130 Value-added Tax detailed and revocation of disposition

○○ (State)

○ Head of tax office

September 15, 2017

d.9.29

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's first addition to the first instance court in November 4, 2014 against the plaintiff on November 4, 2014

The imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 20,713,400, the value-added tax of KRW 152,311,320, and the value-added tax of KRW 1,545,580 in 2012 shall be revoked in all.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial. Thus, this judgment is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

In light of the fact that the plaintiff was indicted on the ground that the non-party 1, who was accused of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, was not a false transaction in the case of the non-party 1's loss caused by the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc., it cannot be deemed that the future N, etc. is merely a business with only formal appearance, and even if the future NN, etc. is a disguised transaction company, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was a bona fide and without fault at the time of the transaction in this case, and in light of the fact-finding acknowledged prior to the overall purport of the statement of evidence No. 12 and arguments, it is sufficient to recognize that the future N, etc. is a disguised transaction company. It is difficult to view that the plaintiff had justifiable grounds under Article 48 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as the plaintiff's duty of care as a trading party

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.