Suwon District Court 2016Guhap6385 (O. 23, 2017)

2016 Heavy0595 ( October 27, 2016)

The purchase of used cars via intermediate payments shall not be subject to input tax deduction.

In rendering the disposition of this case, it is justifiable that the input tax amount was not deducted because it is not subject to the application of the special provisions of this case with respect to the purchase of used cars via other intermediate markets, but it is unlawful to deduct the input tax amount by deeming that it is not subject to the above application with respect to the purchase of used cars via the intermediate markets such as Kima.

Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu70160 ( October 12, 2018)

Category*

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap6385 Decided 23, 2017

2018.03.08

2017.12

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 100,952,860 (including additional tax of KRW 35,809,375) for KRW 44,567,380 (including additional tax of KRW 15,808,66) among the imposition of KRW 100,952,860 (including additional tax of KRW 35,809,375) for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015, the part demanding revocation of KRW 4,146,20 (including additional tax of KRW 23,528,446) among the imposition of KRW 71,108,720 for the second year of value-added tax (including additional tax of KRW 23,528,446) shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 100,952,860 on October 1, 201 for the first time, 201 for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 (Additional acid)

Imposition of tax 35,809,375 won (including tax 35,809,375) and 71,108,720 won (additional tax) of value-added tax for 2011

23,528,446 won (including won) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(2) The main part shall be the part

○ The part of the 9th judgment of the first instance court from 9th to 21th judgment is as follows.

(v)Calculation of the amount of legitimate tax;

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, whether the pertinent disposition exceeds a reasonable tax amount is determined depending on whether the pertinent tax amount is exceeded. The relevant party may submit the objective tax base and tax amount and the allegations and materials supporting such tax amount until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court, and when calculating the legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the reasonable tax amount ought to be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8930, Jun. 12, 2

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was in transit through other intermediate awards.

Although it is legitimate to deduct input tax from the input tax amount by deeming that the part of the purchase of high automobile is not subject to the instant special provisions, it is illegal to deduct input tax amount by deeming that it is not subject to the said application even with respect to the part of the purchase of used cars via the intermediate markets such as Kima

Based on the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s 1.3 billion won for the first time value-added tax in 201 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1.385,480 (including additional tax 20,000,709) and the second time value-added tax in 2011 is 6,962,514 (including additional tax 22,156,50). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that the part of the first time-added tax in 201 should be 10,952,860 out of the imposition disposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff 1, 2015, which is 560 won for the first time in 201, which is more than KRW 36,385,480, and that the part of the first time-added tax in 201 should not be accepted for the intermediate sale of the Plaintiff’s used cars, such as those purchased from the Plaintiff’s intermediate seller, and that it should not be accepted for the intermediate sale of the Plaintiff.

6) If an administrative disposition on the part concerning a claim for revocation of the above excess amount among the instant lawsuits is revoked, such disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a nonexistent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

직권으로 살피건대, 피고가 이 법원의 변론 종결 후인 2018. 3. 29. 원고에 대하여 2011년 제1기분 부가가치세 부과처분 100,952,860원(가산세 35,809,375원 포함) 중 56,385,480원(가산세 20,000,709원 포함)을 초과하는 부분인 44,567,380원(가산세 15,808,666원 포함), 2011년 제2기분 부가가치세 부과처분 71,108,720원(가산세 23,528,446원 포함) 중 66,962,514원(가산세 22,156,550원 포함)을 초과하는 부분인 4,146,200원(가산세 1,371,896원 포함)을 직권으로 취소하는 취지를 각 경정��고지한 사실은 이 법원에 현저하다. 이에 따라 이 사건 처분 중 위 각 직권 취소 부분은 효력을 상실하여 더 이상 존재하지 아니하므로, 이 사건 소 중 2011년 제1기분 부가가치세 부과처분 100,952,860원(가산세 35,809,375원 포함) 중 44,567,380원(가산세 15,808,666원 포함)의, 2011년 제2기분 부가가치세 부과처분 71,108,720원(가산세 23,528,446원 포함) 중 4,146,200원(가산세 1,371,896원 포함)의 각 취소를 구하는 부분은 이미 소멸하고 없는 처분의 취소를 구하는 것으로서 소의 이익이 없어 부적법하게 되었다.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the above ex officio shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the part seeking revocation of the above ex officio among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff'