Daegu District Court 2013Guhap811 ( June 13, 2014)

It is judged that the plaintiff and the other party have accepted tax invoices without real transactions, such as the fact that they recognized processing transactions.

(1) On the ground that the Plaintiff’s representative and the opposite contractual party were at the time of processing transactions, etc., the disposition imposing value-added tax, etc. is not erroneous on the ground that the Plaintiff received only tax invoices without real transactions.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daegu High Court 2014Nu5201 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

Han-A, Inc.

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Guhap811 decided June 13, 2014

May 1, 2015

June 26, 2015

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 revoked the disposition of value-added tax of KRW 291,650 on July 1, 2012 against the plaintiff on January 1, 2010, and KRW 18,939,370 on February 18, 2010 (the statement in the complaint's claim seems to be written in writing on July 5, 2012).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all of the evidence submitted by the first instance court and the statements of Gap Nos. 17 through 21 submitted in the trial, the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

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.

The "AA" between the third and fourth reduction of the judgment of the court of first instance is "AB of a stock company". The "A" between the fourth and fourth reduction of the judgment of the court of first instance is "AB of a stock company."

In the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "No. 3 through 13, 15, and 16 (including each number)" between the third sentence is "No. 3 through 13, and 15 through 21 (including each number)". The second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff was unable to submit a "no. 3 through 13, and 15 through 21". The second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff was unable to submit a "no. 9". The plaintiff submitted Gap evidence No. 17, No. 18 (Purchase), and No. 19 through 21 (each, details of purchase and payment) to prove that there was a real transaction with the related company, etc., but the sales and purchase invoice is merely a document prepared by the plaintiff, and the sales and purchase invoice and deposit payment details are not sufficient to recognize that there is a difference between the sale, purchase date, and sales invoice and sales amount determined by the processing transaction."

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.