Suwon District Court 2017Guhap881, 2018.30

Since he/she did not fulfill his/her duty of care while receiving a false tax invoice, he/she shall not be deemed a party to a transaction with good faith.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was no negligence due to a false tax invoice’s failure to know a false name or a false name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus a non-deductible of input tax amount

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2018Nu64322 Disposition revoking Value-Added Tax Imposition

○○MM Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap881 Decided August 30, 2018

2019.03.06

2019.04.17

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 115,365,70 (including additional tax) and value-added tax of KRW 20,806,070 (including additional tax) for the first term of July 13, 2011 against the plaintiff on the plaintiff on July 13, 2016.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) it added "the amount of 000" to "the corporation and the corporation" after the tax invoices at the fifth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of "3. conclusion", excluding the supplementary part of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, but a false tax invoice, and even if it constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff is a party involved in good faith and without fault, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked. In light of various circumstances, as determined in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this Court, the instant tax invoice was proved to the extent that it was reasonable to deem that the transaction like the entry of the instant tax invoice was actually conducted. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the name of the instant tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed for reasons.