Seoul High Court 2013Nu18300 (24 January 24, 2014)

The tax invoice of this case cannot be recognized as the plaintiff's good faith or negligence with a false tax invoice.

If the actual shipment slips were verified, the actual supplier could have known the fact that the entries were not the main transaction place, and furthermore, considering the motive of purchasing oil in low quantity through credit transactions, etc. which do not receive the shipment slips, the applicant corporation cannot be recognized as having fulfilled its duty of due care as a good manager.

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

2014Du3495 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

1. AA gas station 2. ParkB

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu18300 Decided January 24, 2014

June 12, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the disposition of imposition of resident tax on Plaintiff B’s gambling

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the statutes. If the grounds of final appeal submitted by the appellant does not state such specific and explicit reasons, it shall be treated as failing to submit the grounds of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da25185, Mar. 9, 2006; 2009Du1607, Nov. 26, 2009).

However, the appeal of this case did not state the grounds of appeal on the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the disposition imposing the income tax on Plaintiff ParkB, and there is no mention as to how the appellate brief submitted by Plaintiff ParkB violates the law. Therefore, regarding the disposition imposing the resident tax on Plaintiff ParkB among the judgment of the court below, legitimate appellate brief is not submitted, and there is no other reason of illegality subject to ex officio examination.

2. As to the remaining tax disposition

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that Plaintiff AAB’s gas station constitutes “other tax invoices which are different from actual suppliers entered differently from the supplier on the tax invoice,” in both the tax invoice that Plaintiff AAB received fromCC Energy during the taxable period from the second to the second period from 2008 to the 2009, and the tax invoice that Plaintiff B, who operates DD gas station, received from the Plaintiff CB during the value-added tax period from the first to the second period from 2008.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of proof in a tax invoice or tax lawsuit different from the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

If a supplier and an actual supplier are different, an input tax amount under a tax invoice may not be deducted or refundable unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was nominal, and that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact that he/she was nominal, shall be attested by the party who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 200

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s bona fide and without fault on the ground that the facts found by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff AA2 were insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff did not know and did not know that the Plaintiff was negligent.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “trade parties without fault or negligence” under the Value-Added Tax Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.