1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 18, 2010, the Plaintiff was issued a purchase tax invoice of KRW 504,627,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from A (representative B) during the first taxable period from February 13, 2012 to March 19, 2012, and filed a return on value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice from the Defendant.

B. On September 1, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice stating differently from the fact that “the registration number and name or title of a business entity supplying” as prescribed by Article 16(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) and denied the deduction of the input tax amount based on the instant tax invoice pursuant to Article 17(2)2 of the same Act, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 86,841,219 (including additional tax) for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2012.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 28, 2014, but was dismissed on December 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff actually purchased computer parts from A and remitted the amount to the account under the name of the said transaction partner, and thus, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

Even if the tax invoice of this case is false, the Plaintiff did not know that it was false, but did not know that it was false.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which had different premise, is unlawful.

나. 관계법령 ▣ 구 부가가치세법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 개정되기 전의 것)...