Daejeon District Court 2017Guhap102753 ( October 18, 2017), Daejeon District Court

Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

The instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice on which part of the requisite entries are written differently from the facts, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful and does not violate the principle of trust protection.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon High Court-2017-Nu-13910

Daecheon Liber Co., Ltd.

Decree of the National Tax Service

January 11, 2018

February 8, 2017

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation about the instant case is next to the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment in addition to the dismissal thereof.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 2 16, 17 'Request for Correction' (hereinafter referred to as "request for Correction of this case") is added to 'request for Correction' (hereinafter referred to as "request for Correction of this case").

b)

○ The following shall be added to the 4th 18th 18th :

(Plaintiff) On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice from AA Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

Since the subsequent claim amount was paid and the final return of value-added tax was filed for the second term portion in 2013, the pertinent tax

The statement of accounts shall be "tax in accordance with the facts" recorded as the date and time of the claim for the construction cost.

The invoice is "," and the time of supply of the tax invoice of this case, ex officio after the investigation.

As of July 15, 201, when the construction is completed, the notification that the input tax amount is not deducted is defective, and the plaintiff is not entitled to deduction.

The purport that "only a claim for correction of this case is made by accepting the defendant's intellectual matters as they are, is accepted."

The tax invoice, however, asserts that AA Construction, a corporation, carries out the construction of this case.

of this case, the filing date and the actual payment date of the construction price are issued accordingly.

It should be issued in accordance with the actual transaction time of the construction of this case, regardless of the time of authorization.

As seen earlier, Korea adopts the tax credit at all stages, and the tax invoice is tax payment.

It is inevitably required due to the performance of the function, such as the function of multilateral mutual verification.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

○ 4. The following shall be added under paragraph 20 of the title:

3) The Plaintiff’s decision ex officio, in the second half of 201, that the Defendant’s supply time for the instant construction service was determined ex officio by the Defendant.

The determination that the Plaintiff would recognize the application for the rectification of value-added tax in the second half of 2011.

The plaintiff has expressed a public opinion to that effect, and the plaintiff has trusted it and filed a claim for correction of this case.

Since the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the instant claim for correction is contrary to the principle of trust protection.

C. asserts to the effect that ‘' is:

Trust in the conduct of administrative agency in general in administrative legal relations.

In order to apply the principle of protection, first, administrative agencies are the subject of trust to individuals.

The name of a public opinion shall be the name of the public opinion, and second, the name of the administrative agency shall be justified and trusted;

For the individual, there must be no cause attributable to the individual, and the third individual trust the name of the opinion.

(4) Any disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion shall be taken by the administrative agency.

result in the infringement of the interests of the individuals trusted in the name of the opinion, and any

would prejudice the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party, if such a disposition satisfies such requirements.

Unless such action is taken, an act contrary to the principle of trust protection shall be deemed to be unlawful.

Therefore, even if an administrative disposition satisfies such requirements, an administrative agency’s expression earlier.

The public interest to be achieved by taking an administrative disposition contrary to one public opinion is the public opinion of the administrative agency.

It can be justified that the infringement of the interest suffered by an individual who trusted the expression of such administrative action can be justified.

If it is so strong, such administrative disposition is illegal on the basis of the principle of trust protection.

Nor may (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du7343, Nov. 13, 1998).

In light of the above legal principles, the health team and the defendant's ex officio after the field investigation.

on July 15, 201, at the time of completion of the construction of the instant tax invoice, the time of supply for the instant tax invoice is deemed to be July 15, 201

The fact that the input tax amount is not deducted is as mentioned above. However, such fact is only true.

of this case, the purchase tax amount of value-added tax for the second period of February 201, 201 by the Plaintiff after the Defendant

If you report, they would be entitled to deduct the input tax amount for them."

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

4) In addition, the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's claim for correction of this case by the "the defendant."

Value added tax corresponding to the output tax amount for the second half of 2013 from AA Construction Co., Ltd.

the plaintiff's input tax amount to be deducted as a matter of course is not deducted.

It also argues to the effect that ‘the benefit will be obtained without any reasonable cause'.

However, unjust enrichment is based on the premise that the defendant gains a benefit without legal cause.

According to Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, input tax deduction of the tax invoice of this case

Since the plaintiff did not accept it, it cannot be deemed that there is no legal ground. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as the plaintiff

The above assertion is without merit.

○ Additional "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" to the attached Form of the judgment of the first instance court.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the first instance court shall dismiss it.

The judgment is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.