Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-8326 ( October 20, 2015)

Whether it is different from the facts of the first instance judgment (the same as the judgment of the court of first instance) and can be seen as a bona fide trading party.

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, and even if each of the above purchase tax invoices constitutes a disguised transaction as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not negligent.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu64383. Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 20, 2016

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. Each disposition of the Defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 458,784,250 for the first term of December 3, 2012 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2011, value-added tax of KRW 908,334,640 for the second term of December 201, and value-added tax of KRW 601,667,160 for the first term of December 201 shall be revoked.

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

○ 7. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 10. 1.

The judgment of conviction was rendered on June 19, 2015 in the case of EE District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High and 1302 that "D's representative director D submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller, stating as if he was supplied with the goods even if he did not receive the goods, with the report of the second term portion in 2011 and the first term portion in 2012". D's appeal was filed by EE High Court 2015No1983, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The following shall be added to the 7th page 16 "......."

(F) The Plaintiff’s signboards and FF’s signboards were installed both above and below.

○ 7th 16th 20th 16th 16th 20th 20th 200 as follows:

The funds were deposited from the companies, such as GG, Co., Ltd., Ltd., which are the Plaintiff’s sales place to the Plaintiff’s deposit account, and the F transferred the funds to H, II, J, KK, etc. to the Plaintiff’s deposit account within 10 minutes.

2. Conclusion

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