Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-6415 ( April 12, 2018)

If it is revealed that the facts alleged in the facts of taxation are presumed, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is illegal disposition that does not meet the taxation requirements.

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements is a taxable person, but if the facts alleged in the facts of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts were not eligible for application of

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu43691 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

September 21, 2018

November 9, 2018

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 first added value in November 2, 2015 against the plaintiff on November 2, 2015

taxx members (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the second value-added tax of 2013x members;

The imposition of global income taxx members shall be revoked in all over the year 2013.

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

The reasons for this judgment are as follows: (a) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In relation to ○○ 25 pages 25, the part of the “not existing” up to 8, as follows. “In relation to this, the Plaintiff did not need to secure the aforementioned data separately from the instant purchasing agency because the Plaintiff did not have a warehouse in BB and at the same time the purchase and sale took place due to the lack of warehouse. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff was able to perform his duty of due care, such as taking off a truck sent by the instant purchasing agency to the Plaintiff’s sales office by weighing the closed dong and supplying it to the Plaintiff’s sales office. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an objective material to clearly prove the transaction in the instant tax invoice, such as a measurement table consistent with the transaction specifications on the tax invoice, a measurement certificate, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.”

○ 26 pages 5, “Plaintiff is related to the closed transaction on the issue of this case’s tax invoice.” The Plaintiff appears to be “in relation to the closed transaction on the issue of this case’s tax invoice that was made around 2013 by the Plaintiff.”

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.