In cases where the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are different, whether a person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that he/she was not aware of the fact or was not negligent.

A tax invoice that is different from the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice must be proved by the person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount, unless there are special circumstances where the person who received the tax invoice was unaware of the fact that he was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and the person who did not know of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the person did not know of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that the person did not know of the fact that the person did not know of

Article 17 (2) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4808 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Liability for Entry]

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Head of Si Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu32554 delivered on September 13, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

An entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier under a tax invoice are different from the facts" under Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the person who receives the tax invoice was unaware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence, and the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was not negligent, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu5030, May 14, 1991; 90Nu5030, Aug. 28, 199; 89Nu2134, Oct. 24, 1989).

As asserted in the lawsuit, Gap evidence No. 5-1's contract was submitted to the National Tax Tribunal with evidentiary data, and the contract contains the warranty bond rate, warranty bond rate, warranty bond rate, and liquidated damages rate, and it appears that the contract document No. 5-1's contract document is different from the contract document submitted by the plaintiffs to the National Tax Tribunal. Unlike the ordinary contract document for construction, the contract document prepared by the plaintiffs in the construction work of this case is formally written to the extent that it is difficult to view it as a real contract, such as advance payment rate, warranty bond rate, warranty bond rate, warranty bond rate, and liquidated damages rate, unlike the ordinary contract for construction work, and the plaintiffs did not submit a deposit certificate other than the tax invoice of this case only as evidence in relation to the payment of the construction work of this case. The plaintiffs did not know that the above contract document of this case was submitted to the National Tax Tribunal, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs did not know that the construction work of this case was just and there was no error in the judgment below that the plaintiffs did not know about the above construction work of this case.

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.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)