Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap9212 ( November 19, 2013)

early 2011west 4913 ( December 27, 2012)

Since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have known that the instant transaction was conducted without any actual transaction, the imposition of penalty tax is unreasonable.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not know that the instant transaction was a processing transaction, and did not appear to have any circumstance to suspect it, it is reasonable to deem that there was a justifiable reason not to charge the Plaintiff’s negligence of neglecting the Plaintiff’s duty in the return of value-added tax on the instant tax invoice.

2013Nu52539 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

DongAAAA

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap9212 decided November 19, 2013

June 11, 2014

July 9, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Division of Value-Added Tax OO for the second period of September 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2011

The administrative disposition shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain are the reasons why the defendant added to the conjunctive disposition.

In addition to the addition of the judgment below, the decision of the court of first instance is as follows, and therefore, Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Article 420 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The substance of the instant transaction constitutes the supply of goods by commission agent or agent.

Gohap issued a tax invoice only on the 4.5% portion of the fee acquired, but it received each purchase and sales tax invoice on the basis of the total amount of the transaction price, different from the substance of the transaction known by itself. This constitutes the receipt of a tax invoice that is obviously different from the fact, and thus, it is legitimate to impose an additional tax even in consideration of such reasons.

B. Determination

On the other hand, the object of the taxation revocation lawsuit is objective existence of legitimate tax amount, and thus, the taxation officer.

Cheong even during the proceeding, a taxation list recognized in the disposition in question until the closing of the fact-finding proceedings.

the identity of the disposition or submission of new data to support the legitimacy of the amount of duty;

The reason may be exchanged and changed within the extent that it is maintained, and at the time of the disposition.

Only the data can determine the legality of the disposition or claim only the original reason for the disposition.

It is not possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2000Du4873, Aug. 24, 2001). Thus, the addition of the aforementioned ancillary disposition grounds cannot be deemed unlawful.

However, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this judgment, as a whole,

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s proposal that was known to the employee of the first public agency, as a proposal of the BB to supply goods.

(2) At the time of 'A' entering into a contract for delivery of goods', the Plaintiff provided an explanation to the effect that it has been engaged in such form of transactions since it has no time to pay for funds because it is not basically for profit-making purposes, since there is a certain amount of limit on points sunset, and it seems that there has been no special doubt about the transaction structure. ③ The Plaintiff purchased the goods from CCC after receiving orders from each A and 4 months. The Plaintiff purchased the goods from each 'A' and then received the goods from the 'OO logistics center designated by the 'A', and the Plaintiff paid the purchase price after confirming the delivery of the goods signed by the 'A', and ④ At the same time, 'A' did not have any other reason to acknowledge that the goods were supplied by the 'A' due to the lack of sufficient credibility in this explanation, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff made no other evidence to acknowledge that the goods were supplied by the 'OA' to the 'OD' to the employees of the 'OD' to which the instant goods were supplied.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted.

As the conclusion is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.