beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the case against the defendant in question is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after compiling evidence, and determined that the instant tax invoice delivered by C to the first and second taxable periods of value-added tax in 2005, while the Plaintiff engaged in the industrial plastic manufacturing business under the trade name B, constitutes a false tax invoice issued without a real transaction.
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
A. Article 26-2(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that, in principle, the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes other than inheritance and gift taxes shall be five years from the date on which the relevant national taxes may be assessed. Meanwhile, Article 26-2(1)1 provides that, in cases where a taxpayer evades national taxes, or obtains a refund or deduction, it shall be ten years from the date on which the relevant national taxes may be assessed.
B. Based on evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case issued falsely without real transactions from C and deducted the input tax amount, and reported the value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case, which the plaintiff denied the deduction of the input tax amount, on the premise that the ten-year exclusion period for imposition under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is applied to the disposition of this case, which the head of the tax office denies the deduction of the input tax amount on the ground that such act constitutes "the case where the value-added tax was refunded or deducted by fraud or other
C. However, as against the defendant of the U.S. Tax Office.