Suwon District Court 2008Guhap3891 (209.02.04)

National High Court Decision 2007J306 (Law No. 81.09)

Whether it constitutes a processing tax invoice without real transactions

It is reasonable to deduct the input tax amount equivalent to the value of supply, and include the value of supply in deductible expenses, because equipment, such as business fraud, is actually purchased and paid.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be four minutes, which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 17,449,950 won for the first period of February 1, 2007 against the plaintiff (the "application for the alteration of the lawsuit" is a clerical error) and 13,59,899 won for the corporate tax of 2003 (the "each disposition of this case") shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of the trial;

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case. On February 4, 2009, the first instance court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on February 1, 2007 that "the defendant appealed in excess of 7,336,950 won of the imposition of value-added tax of 17,449,950 won for the first period of 2003 against the plaintiff and 13,59,89 won of corporate tax for the year 2003, and that "the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed," and only the defendant appealed in part of the judgment against the plaintiff that "the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed," it is clear in the records.

Therefore, this court shall decide only on the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, that is, the defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 17,449,950 for the first term of February 1, 2003, in excess of KRW 7,336,950 for the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 17,449,950 for the first term of February 1, 2007, and the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 13,59,89 for the year 203 (hereinafter "the imposition disposition part against

2. Details of the disposition and arguments of the parties concerned;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the entry of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the relevant column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether "the part of the disposition of imposition against the defendant" in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

According to the evidence Nos. 11-1 to 5 of the evidence No. 11-5, since the defendant can recognize the fact that he has revoked ex officio the "the part of the disposition of taxation against the defendant when it comes to the trial," the "the part of the disposition of taxation against the defendant" is null and void by revocation, and no longer exists. Therefore, the "the part of the disposition of taxation against the defendant among the lawsuit of this case against the non-existent administrative disposition" of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of imposition against the defendant among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and thus the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, shall not be maintained as it is. Thus, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit in this case corresponding to the cancellation part shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.