Seoul High Court 2012Nu16437 ( December 06, 2012)

early 201J 1339 ( October 21, 2011)

(Incompetence of hearing) The customer cannot be said to have proved the plaintiff's good faith and negligence because he did not have been punished as the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(Summary) Even if the representative of the transaction partner of this case was not punished as a charge of the crime of tax evasion in relation to the transaction stated in the tax invoice of this case, it is merely a sufficient evidence to acknowledge the above crime, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s good faith or negligence was proven solely on such circumstance.

2013Du2143 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

The two AA

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu16437 Decided December 6, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Trial Procedure, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff is not indicated in the grounds of appeal and is not filed within the statutory period. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final