Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-1315 ( October 21, 2015)

Cho Jae-2012-5247 ( November 18, 2013)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and cannot be deemed a bona fide transaction party of the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to view the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice on the facts of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as the fact that the taxpayer was convicted of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, in which the list of the total tax invoices by seller

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu6514 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

o Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap1315 Decided October 21, 2015

on October 25, 2016

on December 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. 9/10 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

On September 3, 2012, value-added tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on September 3, 2012, the first term portion of the value-added tax year 2009, the first term portion of the second term portion of the OO members in 2009, the first term portion of the O members in 2010, the first term portion in 201, and the first term portion of the O members in 201 were revoked (the part of the disposal date was corrected to the extent that it does not go against the parties’ intent). The Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of the first term portion in 209, the second term portion in 209, the first term portion in 200, the first term portion in 209, the O members in 201, the first term portion in the first term portion in 20, the first term portion in 209, and the part that was voluntarily withdrawn from theO in 2010.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on September 3, 2012 against the plaintiff shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the defendant on September 3, 2012 against the plaintiff on the first term portion of value-added tax in 2009, OO for the second term in 2009, O for the first term in 2010, and OO for the first term in 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following on the third 10th of the judgment of the first instance (from 12th to 1th of the second 12th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

“D. The Defendant issued a decision to correct the assessment of value-added tax on May 19, 2016, on the premise that each tax invoice received from BB during the second period of 2009 and the first period of 2010 from BB in the imposition of value-added tax on September 3, 2012 is false, and on the premise that the amount of the second and second tax invoice received from BB during the second period of 2009 was reduced by the amount of the OO won and the amount of the second value-added tax in the year 2009.”

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of a claim for revocation of correction of a principal tax reduction among the lawsuits in this case

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the court's decision of the first instance except for the second to sixth "the disposition of this case" in the fifth to sixth "the fifth to sixth" of the court's decision of the first instance, as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“In the imposition of value-added tax on September 3, 2012 by the Defendant seeking revocation, the remainder of the imposition of value-added tax on the first term portion in 2009, i.e., the imposition of penalty tax on the first term portion in 2009, the second term portion in 2009 and the first term portion in 2010, and the imposition of penalty tax on the first term portion in 201, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).”

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This part of the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 16 to 17 pages) except for the deletion of "BB" of No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this Court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion that each tax invoice is not false

The court's explanation on this part shall not include the corresponding part of the court's decision of the first instance except that the court has dismissed or added a part of the court's decision of the first instance as follows:

2) Since the same is identical to the entry, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The following shall be added to the “transaction 15” on the seventh and fifth page:

“CCC, the husband of the Plaintiff, filed a final and conclusive value-added tax return on December 18, 2015, 2009, including the first period, with the operator of Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd by sale of goods, including the second period in 2009, although no supply of goods or services was made to FF, and submitted a false list of tax invoices as if he purchased goods or services from EE

○ The following shall be added to the phrase “aslable” in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this title:

[4] The fact that the Plaintiff’s husband submitted a false list of tax invoices by customer and by seller in relation to FF, EE and GG, and that the Plaintiff’s husband was convicted of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

○ The following shall be added to “the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive” in the 9th, 5th and 6th page:

“E” means the fact that the sales of KRW 1 O00,000, KRW 2008, KRW 10000, and KRW 100,000,000, KRW 2009, and KRW 100,000,000 were reported during the second period of 2009, and the value-added tax on the said sales was not paid after reporting the high sales of KRW 00,000,000, KRW 2009.

○ 9. The following shall be added, in the aggregate, to the “in the case of 11st page”:

“GGG”’s 1st purchase price in 201 was caused by only OOO000, and the 1st purchase price in 2011 was excessive compared to O000,000 won, and there is no evidence to prove that the said purchase was made;

2) Determination on the assertion of good faith and negligence

The court's statements on this part are as follows:

Part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 11 to 13 pages 13, 11, et al.) except for dismissal or addition

(B) Since the entry is the same as the entry, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

We accept this as it is.

○ 12 pages 9 to 11 are as follows.

In light of the fact that HH, who operated Doshe FF, used the storage and office of DoD along with the Plaintiff’s husband CCC and long-standing knowledge, HH seems to have been well aware of the fact that HH was not equipped with any valley or field, etc., which is a facility necessary for Doshe’s business, or that HH was well aware of its transaction method.

○ The following shall be added to the third page of the thirteenth page:

“(5) The Plaintiff, prior to making a transaction with the GG, was sent by facsimile the business registration certificate of the GG, sent it to the account office to verify whether it is an enterprise operating normally, and deposited the goods price into the account account of the operator III of the GG, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that each tax invoice was not aware of the fact that it was a tax invoice different from the fact, and that there was no negligence on the part of the operator. However, the Plaintiff’s allegation is not acceptable, on the sole basis of each of the descriptions in subparagraphs 37-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 37-5, it is insufficient to recognize such fact. The Plaintiff’s business registration certificate is merely a certificate proving the registration of the business fact, and it is not recognized that the business registration

3) Determination on the assertion of violation of the Framework Act on National Taxes

The court's instructions on this part shall be limited to the corresponding part of the court's decision of the first instance except where "the defendant" of No. 14 of the court's decision of the first instance is referred to as "the plaintiff" (No. 13, No. 5 through No. 148).

Since it is the same as the entry, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit (the part concerning OO's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 209 among the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning O's imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2010 became invalid as the withdrawal of the plaintiff's lawsuit) and it is so decided as per Disposition.