logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2015. 06. 26. 선고 2014누5188 판결
소프트웨어 용역관련 실물거래 없는 가공세금계산서를 수취하였는지 여부[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Daegu District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-798 ( October 13, 2014)

Title

Whether a processing tax invoice without real transaction related to software services has been received

Summary

In light of the fact that several software development companies have traded tax invoices in a lump sum without real transactions for the purpose of unsatising out the external form, and there is no contract and no evidence of payment, etc., it is proved that it is a false purchase without real transactions.

Related statutes

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cases

2014Nu5188 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

Plaintiff

AAA, Inc.

Defendant

Head of the tax office

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 1, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

June 26, 2015

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's judgment against the plaintiff on July 1, 2012 5,242,890 dated 1, 2008.

Won, 28,054,530 won for February 2, 2008, 18,927,980 won for January 2009, and 66,84,90 won for February 2009;

The imposition and imposition of each value-added tax of KRW 10,872,590 for January 2010, and KRW 53,709,090 for February 2010; and

Each disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 31,211,760, 4,333,510, 2010, July 2, 2012 (the Director)

In July 1, 2012, which is the date of the second disposition, each cancellation of July 1, 2012.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if both the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the evidence submitted in the first instance court, Gap evidence No. 87 through 94, and Gap evidence No. 95-1, 2, and 96 through 100 are examined.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Decision 2 of the first instance court, " May 20, 2013. 5. 20" in the second fourth sentence of the second instance judgment, is called " May 20, 2012. 5. 20." The "OOOO technology development education center of a stock company" in the third sentence of the first instance judgment, is regarded as "Korea OOOO Technology Development Institute of a stock company".

○○ In the fourth place of the judgment of the first instance court, the term “OOOOOO office” is regarded as “OOO office office”. The fifth place of the judgment of the first instance court is the term “OOOOO office office”. The term “OOOOO office office" of the first instance court is regarded as “OO office office office” of the first instance court of the first instance court of the first instance. The term “(including each number) Nos. 3 through 82, 87 through 100 (including each number)” of the first instance judgment of the first instance court of the first instance is regarded as “Nos. 3 through 82, 87 through 100 (including each number).

Then, "The plaintiff was unable to submit" the third 10th st st st st th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th, "it was insufficient to recognize that there was a real transaction between the plaintiff and a related company because each of the above statements alone is inconsistent with the date and amount of the sale, purchase, and

2. Conclusion

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

arrow