logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.07 2015구합8782
부가가치세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 1,003,341,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from A during the taxable period of the value-added tax for the second and second years in 2011 and the first and second years in 2012, and included the value of supply after deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, in the deductible expenses, as a corporation operating the non-ferrous metal manufacturing business in peace-based 1340-20, and filed each return and payment of corporate tax for the two years in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

B. From December 10, 2012 to February 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) determined that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice; and (b) deemed that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice on July 1, 2014, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 19,694,70, value-added tax of KRW 161,760,370, value-added tax of KRW 161,760, and corporate tax of KRW 2,121,340, corporate tax of KRW 17,945,440 for the business year of 2012 and corporate tax of KRW 17,945,40 for the business year of 2012.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection on October 1, 2014, but was dismissed by the Board of Audit and Inspection on May 7, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was confirmed by a measurement certificate, raw materials storage list, and payment statement that the Plaintiff had made a real transaction with A, each of the instant tax invoices cannot be deemed a false tax invoice. Even if it is different from the facts of each of the instant tax invoices, the Plaintiff did not know and did not err by negligence.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) Whether the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice or not, Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

arrow