Suwon District Court 2014Guhap930 ( January 9, 2015)

It constitutes a false tax invoice and is not a party to a transaction with good faith or negligence.

Since the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the fact, and it cannot be deemed that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the disposition of this case that the defendant denied input tax deduction under the tax invoice of this case is legitimate.

Seoul High Court 2015Nu32300

○ ○

Head of Si Tax Office and 1

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap930 decided January 9, 2015

September 16, 2015

October 14, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of the value-added tax for the second term of January 9, 2010, which the head of the Silung Tax Office rendered to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2013, of KRW 5,958,340, value-added tax for the second term of 201, value-added tax for the first term of 201, and KRW 33,48,920 for the first term of 201, and the imposition of the global income tax for the first term of 2011 which the head of the Silung Tax Office rendered to the Plaintiff on January

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ On the 6th written judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the third written judgment:

“(5) The representative Kim○-○ of ○○’s resources stated to the effect that, at the time of running a singing practice room at an investigative agency, only lent the name of the business operator to Jin-○, which had been a part of his/her own, and whether he/she was actually engaged in a transaction. It is difficult to view that Kim○-○ actually

(6) Prosecutions charge that the Plaintiff was issued a purchase invoice for the instant case.

Although non-prosecution disposition was made on the grounds of insufficient evidence as to the suspected facts, the proof of the facts constituting the offense in the prosecution shall not be more strict than the proof of the offense in the case of taxation disposition, but it shall not be bound by the court to the fact-finding in the case of non-prosecution disposition which was conducted by the prosecutor.

○ On the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the next 16th judgment:

“(6) The Plaintiff directly found the instant transaction partners and started the closed transaction, and the need to verify whether the transaction partner is a disguised business entity is a purchaser if the transaction begins with the previous purchaser.

(6) The Plaintiff purchased the Dong from the business partners of the instant case and subsequently purchased ○ Electric Cable and ○○○, etc.

In the case of sale, it seems that the transaction partner of this case had effected a transaction with the plaintiff that the transaction partner of this case did not sell the waste directly, and that the transaction profit is less than that of the plaintiff, it seems that the transaction partner of this case is a disguised business operator.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.