Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-104359 ( March 30, 2016)

It is true that a tax invoice received from the party at issue constitutes a false tax invoice and not a good manager.

(2) The plaintiff does not constitute a good manager. (3) Whether the application of illegal under-reported penalty tax is legitimate or not.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Scope of Purchase Tax Amount) Article 47-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu10785 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

X.x

O Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Guhap104359 Decided March 30, 2016

June 30, 2016

July 21, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 372,683,190, corporate tax of KRW 97,167,370, and corporate tax of KRW 297,543,780 for the second year of 2012 against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that lost is revoked. As to January 5, 2015 by the defendant

The imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 372,683,190 for the second year of 2012 is revoked, respectively.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff corresponding to the revocation part is revoked.

The claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following parts, and thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The following parts are added between the first instance court’s 11th and 14. “In addition, even though the Plaintiff’s employee Aa was merely a c environment employee, bB did not verify whether the Plaintiff’s employee Aa was an employee of c environment at the first place of bbb and at the site of bb, and even though the short-term transaction amount exceeds 1 billion won, it did not prepare a transaction-related contract, and it did not confirm at all whether the c environment is a business with transaction performance or ability.”

B. The following parts shall be added between the 13th and 11th of the first instance judgment. In addition, D shall be a simplified taxable person, and D shall be added to the first taxable period in the year when the business was commenced in case of an unregistered individual entrepreneur who did not make a business registration in 2008 but did not have any record of transactions with the Plaintiff, whether D is an employee of D or D having any record of transactions or capacity. D shall be subject to a simplified taxable person under Article 25 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, of 14th of the first instance judgment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and all appeals by the plaintiff and defendant are dismissed.