Suwon District Court 2014Guhap5461 ( October 12, 2015)

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice, and that there was no negligence in not knowing it.

The plaintiff was aware that the actual counterpart of the transaction was not the transaction partner of this case, or at least there was a negligence that did not investigate, even though it was necessary to investigate the other party's identity as the actual counterpart of the transaction.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2015Nu5692 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

V

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court 2014Guhap5461 ( October 12, 2015)

November 26, 2015

December 10, 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 value-added tax for the first period of January 2, 2010 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013.

The imposition of ○○○, the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, the imposition of ○○○, and the imposition of 201

The imposition of value-added tax for the first term shall be revoked, respectively.

The reason for the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the

this judgment shall be quoted by reason of this judgment.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.