Incheon District Court 201Guhap918 ( November 24, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy341 ( December 02, 2010)

No person shall be deemed to have acted in good faith or without fault due to the fact that he/she has received a statement of such telephone and facsimile from the purchaser.

(1) In light of the following: (a) the trade name of the purchaser is the same as that of the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator immediately before the transaction with the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff discontinued the transaction after introducing a new purchaser; and (d) the Plaintiff’s orders issued to the purchaser include both the same telephone number and facsimile number, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence in the waste resources industry with a high probability of disguised and fictitious transactions cannot be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu4408 Disposition Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

XX

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap918 Decided November 24, 2011

August 22, 2012

September 19, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first term portion of 2009 and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second term portion of 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 7, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows. The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O The decision of the first instance court is closed on July 20, 2010 on July 7, 2010, which will fourth below the second judgment.

O's 3rd 8th 8th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th.

O For the fourth 10th 10th 10th th th th th th 1 of the first instance judgment, "A No. 20th th th th 20th th th th th

In the first instance court's decision 4th 11th, "not trust" is "not trusted (not to accept part of the testimony of the witness of the first instance court in light of the following factual relations and the statements in the evidence No. 12-1 through No. 13 of the evidence No. 12-1 of the evidence No. 12-2 of the second instance court's decision)", and "No. 12-4 of the evidence No. 12-1 through No. 12-4 of the evidence No. 12, and No. 18 of the first instance court's decision."

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.