Seoul High Court 2010Nu34219 ( August 24, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2008J3667 ( October 27, 2009)

It is insufficient to find that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the tax invoice with the knowledge that the supplier was not a person who actually supplied oil.

Unless there is any special circumstance that a person who receives a tax invoice was unaware of the fact that the person was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and was not negligent, the input tax amount pursuant to the tax invoice shall not be deducted or refunded, and that the person who received the tax was not aware of the fact that the person was not negligent, it shall be attested by the party asserting

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011du26015 Value-Added Tax Correction, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu34219 Decided August 24, 2011

February 23, 2012

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal on the imposition of value-added tax.

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the same facts as the judge by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the instant tax invoice received from the Plaintiff from XX Energy Co., Ltd. constituted “unlawful tax invoice” different from that entered by the supplier in falsity.

The ground of appeal on this part is that the above judgment of the court below is erroneous, but it is merely erroneous for the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In cases where a supplier and an actual supplier are different, an input tax amount pursuant to a tax invoice shall not be deducted or refundable unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received the tax invoice was unaware of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she was nominal, and the fact 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du227

The lower court determined that the input tax amount pursuant to the instant tax invoice could not be deducted on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not a person who actually supplied the instant oil, and that there was no negligence in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff was not a person who actually supplied the instant oil.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. An appeal concerning the imposition of corporate tax shall be deemed to be filed;

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to 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 violated the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du23187, Jan. 24, 2008; 2008Du9218, Dec. 11, 2008).

However, the petition of appeal of this case did not state the grounds of appeal, and in the appellate brief, it did not state the body and explicit grounds on which part of the judgment of the court below determined that the corporate tax imposition disposition of this case was lawful based on the provision on the penalty tax not received in evidence, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was legitimate 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.