Suwon District Court 201Guhap3284, 2012.22

National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0014 (Law No. 12, 2011)

The instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice by the supplier, and cannot be recognized as the Plaintiff’s good faith or negligence.

(1) The tax invoice of this case constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact that the actual supplier of old interest is not a person who actually supplied old interest through a disguised transaction without a real transaction, and even if the plaintiff knew or was not aware of the fact that the person entered as a supplier was not a person who actually supplied old interest, there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu16420, revocation of disposition of imposition, including value-added tax

AAA Commercial Corporation

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3284 Decided May 22, 2012

May 14, 2013

June 21, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. A port consumption shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Each disposition of the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010, KRW 000, the first value-added tax in 2008, the first value-added tax in 2009, and KRW 000, the corporate tax in 2008, and KRW 000,000, the corporate tax in 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that for the first instance court's decision, except for the deletion or dismissal as described in paragraph (2) below, and this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts that are deleted or heighted.

• by striking 3, 17, "out of real transactions" in Part 3, of the first instance judgment.

•Nos. 7 through 3 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

(3) As seen earlier, the instant tax invoice constitutes a “tax invoice different from the facts entered differently from the actual supplier,” and the Plaintiff was negligent in having known or failed to know the fact that the Plaintiff entered the name of the said tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is lawful for the imposition of value-added tax and the tax invoice of this case, which calculated the value-added tax and the additional tax, based on which the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice was not deducted and calculated based on the relevant tax invoice, by applying the provisions on additional tax

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case should be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.