Whether Party A’s tax invoice under the name of Party A, which was issued without knowledge and negligence, can be deemed as a false tax invoice under Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (negative)

The Plaintiff reported the business registration certificate of the Dong name comprehensive commercial company Gap, which was operated by the Plaintiff, and actually purchased raw materials which are transactions subject to taxation, and received the tax invoice in its name. The actual fact is that the business entity runs a business by lending only the name of Gap, and issued a false tax invoice in any other place. However, if the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact and was not negligent in not knowing it, the said tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice contrary to the facts under Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu211 Decided July 9, 1985 (Gong1985,1138) 86Nu755 Decided March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,753) 87Nu1133 Decided December 20, 198 (Gong1989,198)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu16357 delivered on November 14, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Grounds of Appeal:

In light of the records and records, the court below determined that the above tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a tax invoice different from the facts under Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that the plaintiff did not know of such fact and was negligent in failing to know it, and it is sufficiently acceptable to determine that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rule of experience as pointed out by the plaintiff, and it is not acceptable to accept the above tax invoice since it was merely a fact-finding court's full authority for fact-finding, and it did not criticize the fact-finding and the fact-finding.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)