logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2018.03.30 2017누23643
원천징수처분취소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following portions shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning of the court of first instance is written or added as stated in the following two paragraphs, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Parts used or added;

A. In addition, the part to be added (i) the third 17th 17th 17th son of the judgment of the first instance, followed by the entry “The amount of each taxation portion of the above amount is as indicated below.” and the following table are added.

In addition to the last 6th 8 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the supply of goods subject to value-added tax” means the delivery or transfer of goods according to all contractual or legal causes (Article 9(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act), which is premised on a change in real rights. Therefore, in the case of entrustment of goods as in this case, the truster’s removal of goods to the trustee does not constitute the supply of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985). The Plaintiff, the truster, did not recover scrap that can be deemed part of the remaining raw materials after completion of the processing due to various circumstances as seen above, and then does not constitute the supply of goods.”

B. As to the transaction part with 7th 13th 7th 7th 13th 13th 13th 2th 2th 200, the following parts are written.

An input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded by a supplier and a supplier on the tax invoice, unless there are special circumstances that the person who receives the tax invoice was negligent in not knowing the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who receives the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the above fact of the name of the tax invoice.

arrow