Seoul High Court 2012Nu20030 (No. 11, 2013)

National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0110 (201.06)

(Presiding to Trial) It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case by being provided with the purchase right of sale.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know

2013Du2761 and revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax

Law Firm AA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu20030 Decided January 11, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

While examining the judgment below in light of the records of this case, and the assertion on the grounds of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Elimination of Final Appeal, it is recognized that the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final