The tax invoice of this case shall be classified as if the entries are different from the facts.

(1) It is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of scrap metal under the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of this case is a third party, not each of the transaction parties of this case, and each of the transaction parties of this case is a disguised trader who issued only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff under his own name (the so-called “the so-called “the so-called data”).

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Nu35917 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

O Stock Companies

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap74685 decided January 21, 2016

September 1, 2016

October 06, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax for the first period of September 1, 2013 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2014.

The imposition of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) and the imposition of KRW 000 (Additional Tax on no Evidence) of the corporate tax in 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's ruling shall be " September 16, 2014" in the second sentence 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as " September 1, 2014".

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, civil litigation, because the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same with that of the High Court other than the dismissal.

The reference shall be made pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Act.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.