Seoul High Court 2011Nu8477 (Law No. 19, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0261 (Law No. 23, 2010)

(C) A tax invoice cannot be concluded to be false solely on the sole basis of a temporary price difference, other than the total price of the parts.

(Main) The difference in the price of parts by seller is recognized as the difference in the price due to the change of the purchasing place, and can be deemed as having been provided with parts at the previous price by changing the customer again. Thus, it cannot be said that a tax invoice is proven to the extent that a temporary difference in the price of parts, which is not the entire price of the transaction partner,

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Du19734, Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Unemployment Co., Ltd.

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu8477 Decided July 19, 2011

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided