Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap3718 ( October 26, 2015)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice.

The disposition of this case, which increased or corrected the value-added tax by not deducting the input tax amount by deeming it as a processing purchase, is legitimate, since only a tax invoice was issued in spite of the actual transaction.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon High Court 2015Nu12777

OO

O Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap3718

2016.031

2016.04.28

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is to dismiss or change part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition. Thus, it is to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Parts in height:

Part 2 "A" in Part 8, 12, 3, 5, 7, 4, and 9, respectively, shall be deemed to be "mediation", and "A" in Part 4 shall be deemed to be "A".

3. Parts changed;

Part 3: "Fees 16" is changed into "money on the pretext of commission"; Part 5, "from the fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of fact Gap, No. 9, 17 (including additional number), Eul's statement of

4. Additional parts

(a) Category 5, Chapter 7, "In the absence of a dispute", "A evidence 2, 4" shall be added to:

B. Chapter 5, "Unclaimed", following the date of issuance of the tax invoice of this case: (3) the Plaintiff’s deposit of the relevant supply price to AA is deemed the most unfair transaction; (4) the Defendant is a stock company BB on October 2013 (hereinafter “BB”); (BB), which overlaps with the Plaintiff’s business period from October 0, 201 to October 00, 201, and provides a loan brokerage business with the same place of business at the same place of business as the Plaintiff; (5) the Plaintiff’s employee could not be deemed to have received tax invoices for the same criminal case as the Plaintiff’s employees for lack of reasonable proof of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s additional tax invoice of KRW 200,00, which was received from AAB during the tax period for 201, but did not receive any more reasonable proof of violation of the Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s additional tax invoice of KRW 210,000,00 for the criminal case where it was suspected that the Plaintiff did not receive any evidence for 201.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.