(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.01.29 2019누35918

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.01.29 2019누35918

부가가치세부과처분취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court has used this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance

[Supplementary to the part used in the judgment of the court of first instance] On the last page 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “from October 9, 2012 to December 16, 2013” is deemed to read “from October 9 to September 16, 2013.”

Part 4, 9 of the first instance judgment, "167" in the 9th sentence shall be dismissed as "230", and the part of "no real transaction" in the 4th parallel 10 to 11 shall be deleted.

In the first instance judgment, the part on the part of the Plaintiff’s reduction from Twelve to Twelve is as follows: “The Plaintiff issues a tax invoice stating that the Plaintiff is a person who is not a actual supplier (in the case of the instant sales) or that a person who is not a actual supplier has been issued a tax invoice written as a supplier (in the case of the instant purchase transaction), to reduce the input tax amount of the instant purchase transaction.”

Article 75(2) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 16008, Dec. 24, 2018) provides that "Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 16008, Dec. 24, 2018)" shall be deemed "Article 75(2)

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sold Aluminum, such as the instant sales transaction, to D, E, and F, and purchased Aluminum, such as D, G, F, and E, as the instant purchase transaction.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, which was based on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is false, is unlawful.

(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;

3. The description; and

C. The reasons why this Court has used for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

Therefore, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are applied.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.09.04 2019누37716

-서울고등법원 2019.03.06 2018누37184

-서울고등법원 2018.12.19 2017누61104

-서울고등법원 2018.07.04 2017누72845

-서울고등법원 2019.12.04 2019누49313