Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap1266, Nov. 16, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3027 ( October 15, 2011)

Since the entry was omitted and did not verify even if it was shipped, it cannot be recognized as good faith or negligence.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The oil station in receipt of a different shipment slips from its form and entries is guilty of failing to investigate, even though it is necessary to investigate, the actual counterpart of the transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu4200 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Kim

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap1266 decided November 16, 2011

June 21, 2012

July 5, 2012

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 defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2009 against the plaintiff on June 7, 2010 shall be revoked.

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable (as a whole, evidence (Evidence No. 11 and 12) submitted by the defendant at the Appellate Island may be recognized as constituting a false tax invoice, and the evidence (including evidence No. 10 submitted by the court of appeal) presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's good faith and negligence). The reasons for the judgment are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.