Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-13892 ( November 13, 2014)

National High Court Decision 2013J 1179 ( October 26, 2013)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff did not fulfill its duty of care as a bona fide transaction party.

(1) The tax invoice of this case is a processed tax invoice issued without a real transaction between the plaintiff and the parties to the transaction of this case. It is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the above fact if comprehensive determination is made through evidence and facts of recognition.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2014-Nu 7173 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

o Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap13892 Decided November 13, 2014

June 4, 2015

June 25, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second term of December 3, 2009 against the plaintiff on December 3, 2012 and the imposition of KRW 000 for the first term of value-added tax for the first term of 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows, and therefore, the reasons for this Court's ruling is as follows:

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

“Establishment of a branch office 542-9 Ho Dong-dong 542-9” in Part 5 of Part 2.

of this title. The term "as soon as it is"

○ Nos. 9-10 of the third page “no person was negligent because he was unaware of, or was unaware of, the fact of a false name.”

On the ground that " was dismissed for lack of knowledge of the fact of a false name and was negligent in not knowing such fact."

The reason is that it is difficult to say that it was dismissed."

○ The 8th page 16 of the title "shall be registered as a business operator" shall be "registered as a business operator."

2. Conclusion

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