Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-1858 (Law No. 16, 2015)

Early High Court Decision 2012-China 4192 (O4.10)

this case’s tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice entered by that supplier.

(1) The Plaintiff could not be deemed to have received oil under the instant tax invoice, since the Plaintiff was in the absence of oil actually purchased by the transaction partner at the time of the instant transaction. The actual supplier of the oil listed in the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a third party, not the transaction partner of the instant case.

Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu5129 Revocation of Disposition imposing Value-Added Tax

Doo

o Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap1858 Decided July 16, 2015

6.23.69

July 14, 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 court is revoked. The imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of the year 2009 imposed on the Plaintiff on July 3, 2013, KRW 22,594,260, value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 2010, value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 2010, KRW 22,898,410, and value-added tax for the second term portion of the year 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows:

In addition, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the addition. Therefore, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant was also aware that the Plaintiff had engaged in normal transactions with the instant transaction partner by treating the amount of oil purchase with respect to global income tax at cost.

However, value-added tax is not only different from global income tax and its underlying laws, but also Korea's value-added tax adopts the pre-stage tax credit system, and thus, takes the form of transaction tax imposed on the external form of transaction, not substantial income, unlike income tax and corporate tax, and thus, it does not constitute a concept of expense deduction and regardless of whether a business operator's profit or loss is. Therefore, even if the Defendant had deducted the amount of oil purchased from the business partner of the instant case from the Plaintiff's global income tax to the cost, it cannot be deemed as having recognized a normal transaction in this case.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

.