Since it is difficult to view it as a separate independent disposition that may disadvantage the plaintiff, there is no eligibility for appeal

The defendant's disposition is merely to revoke part of the tax base and the amount of tax initially reported and confirmed by the plaintiff, and it is difficult to regard it as a separate independent disposition, so it is difficult to view it as a separate independent disposition.

Article 57 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Guhap23666 The revocation of Disposition Rejecting Value-Added Tax;

Aaaaaa

F. Head of a tax office

April 17, 2019

201.5.29

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition to reduce the value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 11, 2017 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that closed its business on April 30, 2018 while engaging in a sales agency business in Daegu-gu from November 4, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff issued sales tax invoices of KRW 1,991,050,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided sss with services related to apartment sales during the 2nd taxable period of the value-added tax in 2016.

C. On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the amount of KRW 198,199,287 of the value-added tax of KRW 2016 (i.e., KRW 199,105,00 of the sales amount of KRW 905,00 of the sales amount of KRW 905,713), but did not pay it. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the value-added tax of KRW 198,199,287 was paid by the Plaintiff around May 2017.

D. Meanwhile, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from April 18, 2017 to July 20 of the same year, and as a result, determined that the instant tax invoice was issued without supplying goods or services, and constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact.

E. Accordingly, on August 10, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax investigation that “the Plaintiff does not recognize all sales pursuant to the instant tax invoice” and issued a corrective disposition on September 11, 2017, which reduces KRW 159,284,000 from the Plaintiff’s second value-added tax amount in 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 7, 2017, but the appeal was dismissed on May 23, 2018.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) Grounds for procedural illegality;

The Defendant made an oral notification to the Plaintiff that the value-added tax was revoked ex officio in 2016, but did not notify the Plaintiff in writing of the details of the reasons for revocation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s procedural right was infringed.

B. Grounds for substantial illegality

Since the Plaintiff actually provided the above service by being awarded a subcontract for the sales agency service from Ss., the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a tax invoice written differently from the fact.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant legal principles

A disposition of reduction or correction is not an original return or a separate tax disposition, but an original return or a separate tax disposition, and its substance is a disposition that leads to a change of the tax base or a disposition of imposition, which leads to a favorable effect to taxpayers as a result of the change of the original return or a disposition of imposition, and thus causes a partial cancellation of the tax amount, and thus the remaining part of the decision of correction remains illegal, the object of appeal litigation is the remainder of the original return or a disposition of correction, which is not revoked by the decision of correction, and the decision of correction is not a subject of appeal litigation. Whether a corrective disposition is disadvantageous or not shall be determined on the basis of whether the amount of tax to be borne by taxpayers increases. As for taxes in the form of tax return and payment, the tax base and the amount of tax are determined on the basis of the tax amount to be borne by the taxpayer. Since the tax authority did not dispute a disposition of refusal of correction of the tax base and the amount of tax are determined ex officio, it does not affect the taxpayer's disadvantage, and thus, it cannot be claimed to revoke such reduction or correction disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu.

B. Determination

A) In light of the aforementioned relevant legal principles, the instant disposition is not to determine specific tax liabilities on the remaining amount of value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff, but merely to cancel part of the tax base and tax amount initially reported and confirmed by the Plaintiff, and thus it is difficult to view it as a separate independent disposition, and thus, it is difficult to view it as a subject of appeal.

B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that if ssss are subject to the imposition of value-added tax and additional tax pursuant to the follow-up measures of the instant disposition, the disadvantage is ultimately borne by the Plaintiff, who is the counterparty to the transaction. However, the disadvantage alleged by the Plaintiff is merely a de facto indirect or reflective one, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition has a standing to be subject to appeal litigation, contrary

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.