Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-62514 ( April 15, 2016)

Early High Court Decision 2015west 4784 (02.09)

It is a false tax invoice because it is not a real transaction, and it is difficult to recognize it as a justifiable reason that is not attributable to negligence of duty.

It is difficult to see that there is an actual supply act corresponding to the matters stated in the tax invoice, and it is reasonable to conclude that there is a false ratification, and that there was an neglect of duty to verify the processing transaction or an implied acceptance of the processing transaction.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Nu4154 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap62514 decided April 15, 2016

September 21, 2016

October 19, 2016

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 shall be revoked 20 ¡¿. The defendant's 20 ¡¿. The plaintiff shall be revoked 】 20 】 year 】 the value-added tax ○○○ and 20 】 year 】 the imposition of value-added tax ○○○○○○.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ 2. The "Additional Tax on Insincere of Tax Invoice" in Part 15 for the second reasons, "Additional Tax on Insincere of Tax Invoice" in Part 3, and "Additional Tax on Insincere of Tax Invoice" in No. 12-13 for the last reasons are all "Additional Tax on Insincere of Tax Invoice".

The second sentence below the third upper part of the table x 20 x. x. x. x. x 20 x. x. x. x. x. x. 】 】 】.”

Pursuant to the third upper part of the table, the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract with the AA in the form of “Advance payment (Plaintiff), designation of a selling place, and consignment storage and sale (AA),” and added “as soon as the 8th part of the said table.”

Article 22(3) provides that “Where a tax invoice is issued without supplying goods or services, or a tax invoice is issued without being supplied with goods or services, the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply shall be treated as “the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply to the entrepreneur”.

○ 7. The following shall be added to the “goods” of conduct 11(5) inside the 7th gambling place (Article V(5).

The phrase "20 】...... 】... 】 】....... 】 】 20 】..... 】 】............

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.