Suwon District Court 2007Guhap4020, 17 June 2008)

Early High Court Decision 2007J0726 (Law No. 21, 2007)

The propriety of the disposition in respect of a false tax invoice and pre-registration tax amount, deemed an interim payment condition;

If the contents stated in a sales contract support its legitimacy, the burden of proof that they are due to a sales security contract against the plaintiff is not proved by the plaintiff, and the tax invoice constitutes an input tax amount different from the facts or the input tax amount prior to registration.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 109,723,700 against the Plaintiff on August 8, 2006 by the Defendant on August 8, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The sales contract of August 7, 2004 between Lee Jong-hee and Cho Jong-hee was cancelled at the time of the sale contract of August 30, 2005 between the plaintiff and Lee Jong-hee. The real estate of this case was supplied by the sale contract of August 30, 2005, and therefore, the real estate of this case was so supplied by the sale contract of August 30, 2005. Accordingly, even though the plaintiff received a tax invoice for the supply of the real estate of this case on September 5, 2005, which was less than 20 days retroactively from the date of application for business registration ( September 12, 2005) and was refunded value-added tax pursuant to the said tax invoice, the disposition of this case that the defendant regarded that the real estate of this case was supplied by the sale contract of August 7, 2004 is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

6. The plaintiff's sales contract was 0. 1 to 5, 11, 12-1, 18, 18, 19-2, and 0. 2 of this case's sales contract was 0. 2 of this case's sales contract which was 0. 2 of this case's sales contract, 40. 2 of this case's sales contract was 0. 7 of this case's sales contract, 00,000 won and 0. 2 of this case's sales contract was 0. 7 of this case's sales contract was 0. 8 of this case's sales contract was 0. 7 of this case's sales contract was 0. 2 of this case's sales contract, 00,000 won, 450,000 won and 0. 2 of this case's sales contract was 0. 7 of this case's sales contract, and 0. 2 of this case's sales contract was 07 of this case's

Therefore, the Defendant determined that the instant real estate was supplied based on the sales contract dated August 7, 2004, and that the instant tax invoice was lawful for the reason that the said tax invoice constitutes an input tax amount different from the fact, on the ground that the said tax invoice constitutes an input tax amount before the registration, considering the time of supply for the goods.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.