Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap19342 ( October 21, 2010)

Review Division 2008-0205 (20 December 20, 2009)

Whether the date of supply constitutes a false tax invoice

It is reasonable to see that the tax invoice received by the requesting corporation is a tax invoice different from the fact of the time of supply, in view of the fact that the rental car, which is an item on the tax invoice, has already been sold to the individual at the time of issuance of the tax invoice and the fact that

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

○○ene Liberavis, Inc.

Head of Seocho Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 410,574,960 on July 2, 2008 by the defendant against the plaintiff on July 2, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 44,927,767 in excess of 44,927,767 in the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 410,574,960 in the year 2003 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "(b) △△△△△△△△△," "(b) 8 and 9 of the first instance court judgment," and "the first instance court, concluded a sales contract on the above vehicles and claims purchased in the name of △△△△△△△△, which purchased the above vehicles and claims in the name of △△△△△," and "the first instance court, issued a tax invoice on July 1, 2003, stating that the △△△△△△△△△△△ will sell the remaining vehicles to △△△△△△△△△△," and the first instance court, stating that "the △△△△△△△△△" was the △△△△△△△△△△△, and that the △△△△△△△△△ was the △△△△△△△," and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable as the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.