beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-46354 (Law No. 21, 2016)
Title
The plaintiff of this case was negligent in not knowing that he knew, or was unaware, of his name.
Summary
The representative director of the plaintiff visited the purchaser's place of business and the main place of business, and at the time, the office was found to be an enterprise that did not actually operate the business, and thus, the office was found to have been negligent in finding the plaintiff.
Related statutes
Article 17 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Cases
2016Du33964 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
Plaintiff-Appellee
AA Resources Corporation
Defendant-Appellant
O Head of tax office
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court 2015Nu46354 (Law No. 21, 2016)
Imposition of Judgment
May 24, 2016
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
While examining the grounds of appeal in comparison with the records of this case and the judgment of the court below, the argument on the grounds of appeal is deemed not to include or not acceptable the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition